APHC010180222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 392/2024 Between: 1. NEKKANTI KIRANMAI, D/O.N.VENKATA RAO AGED 27 YEARS, R/O.ACHANTA VILLAGE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2. NEKKANTI SRINIVAS, S/O.VENKATESWARARAO AGE 40YEARS NEAR KOTHURU RAMALAYAM R/O.ACHANTA VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 3. NEKKANTI SUSEELA, W/O.NEKKANTI SRINIVAS AGE 35 YEARS NEAR KOTHURU RAMALAYAM R/O.ACHANTA VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 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 26.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.240 of 2024 in S.C.No.137 of 2018 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, West Godavari, Eluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The order impugned is dated 26.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.240 of 2024 in S.C.No.137 of 2018 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, West Godavari, Eluru, whereby an application filed for recalling PW.1 for further chief examination was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the Petitioner has preferred the Revision Case. 4. 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 dismissed the re-calling of PW.1 for further chief examination. 5. 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, held that receiving of documents, summoning of the witnesses are all interlocutory in nature and against which no revision case is maintainable. 6. 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. 7. Hence, the Criminal Revisional Case is dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of six months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 20.07.2026 VTS 4(2017) 14 SCC 809 5(1977) 4 SCC 137