Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/745/2024 of KADIYALA SUDHARANI @ SUDHA Vs THE STATE on 8 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 745/2024 Between: 1. KADIYALA SUDHARANI @ SUDHA, W/O. CHINNABABU,
APHC010344592024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 745/2024
Between:
1. KADIYALA SUDHARANI @ SUDHA, W/O. CHINNABABU, AGED 45 YEARS, BILAI COLONY, NEAR WATER TANK, ASR NAGAR, SITAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN
2. SMT. BAMMIDI SAILAJA,, W/O. RAMSANKAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEAR3, D.NO. 31-64-210, SIDDARTHA NAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM, DUWADA
VILLAGE, VADLAPUDI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.
3. SMT. AKINEPALLI SRIDEVI,, W/O. SOBHAN BABU, AGED 43 YEARS, SAITEJA ENCLAVE, VISALA TOWERS, KUKATPALLY, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT .
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI .
2. NUKALA GOWTHAMI, W/O. KILANI VENKATA SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, VALANDAPALEM, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. R2 IS
IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 IN IA.NO.1
OF 2025 IN CRL.RC.NO.745 OF 2024.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. PILLIX LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused seeking to set aside the Order dated 27.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2354 of 2022 in C.C.No.1662 of 2021 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences at Machilipatnam.
2. Heard Sri P.Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri K.V.Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to settled law. Learned counsel would further submit that, except bald and omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. It is submitted that, none of the statements of the witnesses disclose the involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged crime. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order and discharge the Petitioners.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trial. The order passed by the learned trial Judge is well reasoned and does not warrant interference of this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, there exists prima facie material against the Petitioners, who are the elder sisters of Accused No.1 i.e., the husband of Respondent No.2/ De facto complainant in the present crime and the truthfulness of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial. Further, the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C also disclose prima facie allegations against the Petitioners. In such circumstances, this is not the stage to decide the complicity of the Petitioners in the alleged crime and there are no infirmities or illegalities in the order passed by the learned trial Judge warranting interference of this Court in this revision. In that view, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the presence of the Petitioners / Accused Nos.3 to 5 before the trial Court is dispensed with, except on the specific dates as directed by the learned trial Judge. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:09.04.2026 Dinesh
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.R.C.No.745 of 2024
Dt.09.04.2026
Dinesh