APHC010332332022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 543/2022 Between: 1. PONNA ROJA, D/O VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. OCC. MEDICAL PRACTITIONER . R/O VENKATESWARA NAGAR, GOLLAPUDI VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BIKKI SWETHA, W/O NAGENDRA BABU. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD R/O C/O CHILUKURI VISWESWARA RAO S/O PULLAYYA, COLLEGE STREET, ACHANTA VILLAGE, ACHANTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ACHANTA PS, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3. LEGAL AID 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 04.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3154 of 2022 in C.C.No.437 of 2017 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol whereby and whereunder an application filed under Section 216 read with 323 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to add the charge under Section 307 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 498-A, 109 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 & 4 of ‘the D.P.Act.,’ is allowed. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The order impugned is dated 04.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3154 of 2022 in C.C.No.437 of 2017 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol of adding of charges is purely interlocutory in nature. 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 allowed adding of charges. 1 ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ 3 5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.1 relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Ravi v. State of T.N.,2 wherein at paragraph No.7 it is held as under: “7. From the above conspectus of events, it clearly transpires that the Respondent No. 2 after having failed to get himself discharged from the Sessions Court as well as from the High Court in the first round of litigation, filed another vexatious application before the Sessions Court under Section 216 of Cr. P.C., after the framing of charge by the Sessions Court, for modification of the charge. The Sessions Court having dismissed the said application, the Respondent No. 2 preferred the Revisional Application before the High Court under Section 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C. The High Court in its unusual impugned order, discharged the Respondent No. 2 (A-2) from the charges levelled against him, though his earlier application seeking discharge was already dismissed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court and that position had attained finality. The High Court utterly failed to realise that the order impugned against it was the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application of the Respondent No. 2 seeking modification of the charge framed against him under Section 216 of Cr. P.C., and the said order was an order of interlocutory in nature.” 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam3, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.4, Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI5, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana6, held that receiving of documents, summoning of the witnesses and altering of charges are all interlocutory in nature and against which no revision case is maintainable. 7. 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. 8. Hence, the Criminal Revisional Case is dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law and submit 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283 3(2009) 5 SCC 153 4(2001) 7 SCC 401 5(2017) 14 SCC 809 6(1977) 4 SCC 137 4 a report to the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of six months. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file appropriate application before appropriate form subject to procedure and in accordance with law. 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: 27.07.2026 VTS