Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010131752019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 472/2019 Between: 1. S.FATHIMA, W/O.HASAN AHMED, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.39-3718/B, BESIDE KAPULA KALYANAMANDAPAM, MASEED STREET, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA- 10, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. SK.HASAN AHTRIED, S/O.ABDUL GAFFAR, MUSLIM, R/O D.NO.8- 152-1, RANGU BAZAAR. PEERLA CHAVIDI SANDU, JAGGAIAHPETA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. ABDUL GAFFAR, S/O.HASAN AHMED, MUSLIM, R/O D.NO.39-3- 18/B, BESIDE KAPULA KALYANAMANDAPAM, MASEED STREET, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA-10, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. SK.NAZIMA SULTANAM, W/O.NAZIMA ANWAR, MUSLIM, R/O D.NO.39-3-18/B, BESIDE KAPULA KALYANAMANDAPAM, MASEED STREET, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA-10, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. S ARIFA, W/O.SAJID, MUSLIM AGED ABOUT MAJOR YEARS, R/O. TAJ MASJID STREET, KUMMARIPALEM CENTRE, VIDYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1 challenging the interlocutory order dated 27.02.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.296 of 2019 in C.C.No.1804 of 2013 passed by the learned Judicial II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. The order impugned is dated 27.02.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.296 of 2019 in C.C.No.1804 of 2013 passed by the learned Judicial II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, whereby an application filed under Section 319 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to implead Accused Nos.2 to 5 was allowed. Aggrieved by that order the Accused/Petitioners has preferred the Revision Case. 3. Indeed, a revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable as per Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The order impugned is undoubtedly an interim order, as it merely allowed an application filed for impleading the Petitioners. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam2, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.3, Girish Kumar Suneja 1 ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ 2(2009) 5 SCC 153 3(2001) 7 SCC 401 3 v. CBI4, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana5, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that receiving of documents, summoning of the witnesses are all interlocutory in nature and against which no revision case is maintainable. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sethuraman, Bhaskar Industries Ltd., Girish Kumar Suneja, Amar Nath supra the Criminal Revision case is not maintainable. 6. On further perusal of the e‑Courts case status report, the case against the Petitioners was ended in acquittal vide judgment in C.C.No.1804 of 2013 on 27.11.2019. 7. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 13.07.2026 PRA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4(2017) 14 SCC 809 5(1977) 4 SCC 137 4 91 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 472/2019 Date: 13.07.2026 PRA