Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/276/2013 of Dayaneni Rajayalakshmi Tulasibai, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: Between: 1. DAYANENI RAJAYALAKSHMI TULASIBAI,, W/O.D.R.K.SAYOJI RAO, PROPERTIES, R/O.CHOWDARYPET, PAMARRU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. THE
APHC010707662013
IN TH
FRIDAY,T
TWO
THE HONOURA
CRIMINA
Between:
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.
1. DAYANENI RAJAY PROPERTIES, R DISTRICT.
1. THE STATE OF PROSECUTOR, H HYDERABAD.
2. K V APPARAO, R/O.D.NO.54-19-7, VIJAYAWADA, KRIS Revision filed unde circumstances stated in Case, the High Court Crl.A.No.108 of 2010 dat & Sessions Judge, Krish the III Additional Chie CC.No.718 of 2007 dated Counsel for the Petition
1. GANDURI NAGESW E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAM AL REVISION CASE NO: 276 OF 2013 YALAKSHMI TULASIBAI,, W/O.D.R.K R/O.CHOWDARYPET, PAMARRU AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA P
S/O.RADHA KRISHNAIAH, OC 2ND LAND JAYAPRAK SHNA DISTRICT. ...RES er Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C pray the affidavit filed in support of the C may be pleased to call for the re ted 20.10.2012 on the file of the VIII A hna at Vijayawada modifying the sent ef Metropolitan Magistrate Court, d 07.06.2010, set-aside the same. ner: WARA RAO DESH
H MANTA
K.SAYOJI RAO, U, KRISHNA ...PETITIONER ITS PUBLIC RADESH, AT CC:BUSINESS, KASAHNAGAR, SPONDENT(S): ying that in the riminal Revision ecords made in Additional District ence passed by Vijayawada in
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. P DHARMESH The Court made the following Order :
Mr. M. Kumar, learned counsel, representing Mr. Gaduri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel or the Petitioner informed this Court that the Petitioner was expired. He received such information from his counterpart from the court below. The S.H.O concerned has submitted a report contending inter alia that the Petitioner is ‘not traceable’.
2. Considering the situation, it would be futile exercise of the concerned authorities to submit a report. Placing reliance on the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it appears as the Petitioner has expired, nothing left to decide the matter on merits.
3. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby dismissed as infructuous.
4. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J
Date: 13.03.2026
KK
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 276 OF 2013
13.03.2026
KK