APHC010020772022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 51/2022 Between: 1. MULAPARTHI VIJAY KUMAR,, S/O. LATE BANGARRAJU AGED 48 YEARS, R/O ARUNDHATIPETA, VANGAYAGUDEM ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. MULAPARTHI KISHORE KUMAR,, S/O. LATE BANGARRAJU AGED 42 YEARS, R/O ARUNDHATIPETA, VANGAYAGUDEM ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ELURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. MULAPARTHI AASA JYOTHI, W/O. ARUN KUMAR AGED 38 YEARS, R/O. ARUNDHATIPETA, VANGAYAGUDEM, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.51 of 2022 Dated 30.07.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the order dated 17.11.2020 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, in C.C.No.481 of 2020, whereby cognizance was taken on the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P.Act’), against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4. The order taking cognizance of an offence against a particular accused is not an interlocutory order; rather, it is an intermediate order, as it substantially affects the rights of the parties. Therefore, the present revision is maintainable. 2. Sri P. Sudhakar Kumar, learned Counsel, is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue the necessary proceedings in this regard. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.3, namely, Mulaparthi Vijay Kumar, died on 20.01.2026. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case, insofar as Petitioner No.1/Accused No.3 is concerned, stands dismissed as abated. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.51 of 2022 Dated 30.07.2026 5. The learned Trial Court, while taking cognizance, passed the following order: “Defacto Complainant notice served. Defacto Complainant filed a memo, objections raised by Defacto Complainant. The Hon’ble Court has ordered case against A3 & A7 are taken on file. Hence case against A1 to A4 for the offence U/Sec.498(A) and 34 IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.” 6. The above order does not assign any reasons, much less valid reasons, though briefly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI 1 in paragraph No.48 held that, while taking cognizance, even though elaborate reasons are not required, at least brief reasons must be assigned. The order taking cognizance of the alleged offences against Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 suffers from non-application of mind and is bereft of even brief valid reasons. Hence, the said order is liable to be interfered with and set aside. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, is directed to pass fresh orders regarding taking cognizance of the offences against Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4. 7. The contention of Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 that he is residing separately and is not residing with the other accused is a matter of evidence. The further contentions of Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4 that he never came to the house of Accused No.1 and never supported or encouraged his brother are also matters of evidence. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 609 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.51 of 2022 Dated 30.07.2026 8. After dictating the above order, the Respondent No.2, namely, Mulaparthi Aasa Jyothi, who is present before this Court upon being produced by the Inspector of Police, submits that she has no objection to set aside the order of taking cognizance of the alleged offences against Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4. She further submits that he has not committed any offence against her, that he is doing a private job, and that he is innocent. In view of her voluntary statement, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order taking cognizance of the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P. Act.,’ against Petitioner No.2/Accused No.4. 9. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, is directed to dispose of C.C.No.481 of 2020 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:30.07.2026 KMS 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.51 of 2022 Dated 30.07.2026 60 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 51/2022 Date: 30.07.2026 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.51 of 2022 Dated 30.07.2026