Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24519 (AP)

CHEPPINAPI MASTHANAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

CRLP/7357/2021 · 2026-03-08

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010495902021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7357/2021 Between: 1.CHEPPINAPI MASTHANAIAH, S/O MALAKONDAIAH, HINDU, AGE 53 YEARS, R/O INDUPURU VILLAGE, ALLURU MANDAL, NOW WORKING AS A GOVT. TEACHER AT U.P.SCHOOL,MMUTTEMBAKA VILLAGE, VAKADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DT. 2.CHEEPINAPI RAMANAMMA, W/O MALAKONDAIAH, HINDU, AGE 71 YEARS, R/O INDUPURU VILLAGE, ALLURU MANDAL. SPSR NELLORE DT 3.CHEEPINAPI MALAKONDAIAH, S/O SANYASAIAH, HINDU, AGE 76 YEARS, R/O INDUPURU VILLAGE, ALLURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,AMARAVATHI. THROUGH THE S.D.P.O., OF WOMEN POLICE, NELLORE 2.CHEEPINAPI PADMAVATHI, W/O. MASTHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. MUSUNURU VILLAGE, KAVALI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 29.04.2024 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN CRL.P.NO.7357 OF 2021. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 2 1.AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Despite the matter having been listed as a last chace, there has been no representation on behalf of the Petitioners. Even after affording sufficient opportunity, neither the Petitioners nor their Counsel have chosen to appear or prosecute the case. It is also pertinent to observe that the present case constitutes one of the oldest matters pending on the roster. The non- appearance of the Petitioners, despite the long pendency of the matter, reflects a lack of diligence. In view of the absence of representation and the failure to advance arguments, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners are not interested in pursuing the present proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 09.03.2026 VTS