Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7017 (AP)

Kudupudi Aruna Jyoti v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLRC/840/2026 · 2026-07-27

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010384922026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 840/2026 Between: 1. KUDUPUDI ARUNA JYOTI, W/O VARAPRASAD NARAAYANA RAO, D/O KUDUPUDI SATYANARAYNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC GOVT. TEACHER, NEAR BULLODU BRIDGE, R/O MAMIDIKUDURU, MAMIKUDURU MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 2. KUDUPUDI SATYANARAYANA, S/O. VENKATA SWAMYTATAYYA,AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC RTD. TEACHER,R/O MAMIDIKUDURU, MAMIKUDURU MANDAL,DR.B .R. AMBEDKARKONASEEMA DISTRICT. 3. KUDUPUDI SATYA SAI BHAVANI, W/O SATYANARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,R/O MAMIDIKUDURU, MAMIKUDURU MANDAL,DR.B.R.AMBEDKARKONASEEMA DISTRICT 4. KUDUPUDI PRAVEEN, S/O SATYANARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC PANCHAYATI SECRETARY,R/O MAMIDIKUDURU, MAMIKUDURU MANDAL,DR.B .R.AMBEDKARKONASEEMA DISTRICT. 5. KUDUPUDI LAKSHMI ROOPA, W/O PRAVEEN,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,R/ O MAMIDIKUDURU, MAMIKUDURU MANDAL,DR.B.R.AMBEDKARKONASEEMA DISTRICT 6. CH KISHORE, S/O GOPLARAO,AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC LECTURER IN VIDYANIDHI COLLEGE,DONGAVARI PALEM, KONKAPALLI, AMAPALURAM MANDAL,DR. B.R.AMDEDKAR KONASEEMAA DISTRICT. 7. CH MANJULA DEVI, W/O KISHOR,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC 2 HOUSEWIFE, DONGAVARI PALEM, KONKAPALLI, AMAPALURAM MANDAL, DR. B.R.AMDEDKAR KONASEEMAA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. KOLIA VARA PRASAD NAARAYANA RAO, S/O KOLIA SURYANARAYANA,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC GOVERNMENT TEACHER,R/O MANEPALLI VILLAGE, P.GANNAVARAM MANDAL,DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2026 in C.C.S.R.No.818 of 2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Mr.B.Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole is bereft of reasons, much less judicious reasons, and therefore prays to set aside the same. 3 4. Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while adopting similar submissions, urged to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned order and directing the learned jurisdictional Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 5. On perusal of the record, the order dated 03.06.2026 in C.C.S.R.No.818 of 2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole suffers from a complete absence of reasons. The order does not disclose any application of mind or consideration of the material placed before the Court, thereby rendering it a non‑speaking order. Such an approach is contrary to the settled principles of judicial propriety and transparency. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.,1 has categorically mandated that judicial orders must reflect cogent reasons and adherence to procedural safeguards. The failure to follow the principles laid down therein, in letter and spirit, vitiates the impugned order and makes it unsustainable in law. 6. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.06.2026 in C.C.S.R.No.818 of 2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole, is hereby set aside, with a direction to the learned jurisdictional Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in strict adherence to the guidelines issued in Priyanka Srivastava supra. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. 1 2015 (6) SCC 287 4 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 28.07.2026 PRA 5 92 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 840/2026 Date:28.07.2026 PRA