Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/287/2026 of Yarramalli Raghu Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 9 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. YARRAMALLI RAGHU KUMAR, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS,R/O DR.NO.46
APHC010125042026
IN THE H
(
TUESDAY
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. YARRAMALLI RAGH
YEARS,R/O DR.NO.4
GUNTUR, GUNTUR D
GOLDEN HOMES AP
60 FT ROAD, PALANA
1. THE STATE OF A
PROSECUTOR,HIGH
AMARAVATI.
2. NANDIRAJU NAGALA
AGED 40 YEARS,R
RAILPET, GUNTUR.
Revision filed under
circumstances
stated
in
CriminalRevisionCase, the
pleased to set-aside the
C.C.No.3020 of 2021, date
Additional Junior Civil Judge
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Y,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
L REVISION CASE NO: 287/2026
HU KUMAR, S/O SUBBA RAO, A
46-05-547, SHIRSTLAVARI STREET
DISTRICT.PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
PARTMENT,3RD LINE, JANDA CHETTU
ADU DISTRICT.
...PE
AND
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
H
COURT
OF
ANDHRA
PRAD
AKSHMI, W/O YERRAMALLI RAGHU
/O DR.NO.46-05-547, SHISTLAVARI
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t
n
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
High Court may be pleased tomay b
e Order passed in Crl.Mp.No.712 o
ed 02.12.2025, on the file of the cour
e, Guntur in the interest of justice and p
RATAPA
AGED 41
,RAILPET,
T 0PP.KVR
U VEEDHI,
TITIONER
S PUBLIC
ESH
AT
U KUMAR,
STREET,
NDENT(S):
that in the
t
of
the
be pleased
of 2025 in
rt of the IV
pass such
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of Chargesheet in C.C.No.3020 of 2021, on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur before this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of the main CrI. RC
and pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G SRI HARSHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 287/2026
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:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking to set aside the order dated 02.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.712 of 2025 in C.C.No.3020 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.
2. Heard Sri G.Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the de-facto complainant voluntarily deserted the petitioner/Accused No.1 on 28.04.2021 and thereafter both of them came down to Guntur. It is contended that the de facto complainant lodged a false complaint against the petitioner/A-1 and his family members, which was registered as Crime No.104 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A and 323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of investigation, the said case was taken cognizance as C.C.No.3020 of 2021 on the file of the Court below. Learned counsel further submits that the de-facto complainant also filed a maintenance case before the Family Court, Guntur, and a Domestic Violence Case before the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Railways, Guntur. According to the learned counsel, all these cases have been filed only to harass the petitioner and his family members.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner applied for issuance of a passport at the Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada, and the authorities informed him that since the above criminal case is pending, he has to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the concerned Court. The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Manager (FP&A) in a multinational company located at Whitefield Building, F.J.R.I Park, Bengaluru. As per the terms and conditions of his employment, he is required to visit the United States of America and other countries for official work, failing which he may lose his employment. Therefore, he requested the trial Court to issue a No Objection Certificate for issuance of passport in Passport File No. VJ2065836890125. However, the said petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision.
5. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant filed a counter stating that the trial in C.C.No.3020 of 2021 has already commenced. She would further submit that, if a No Objection Certificate is issued for obtaining a passport, there is every possibility that the petitioner may leave the country and evade the criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
6. Considering the submissions made on both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is to be noted that the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.3020 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner has not sought permission of the Court to leave the country pending trial; rather, he has only sought issuance of a No Objection Certificate for obtaining a passport. Needless to state that merely because a person is facing allegations in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he cannot be deprived of obtaining a passport. At the same time, appropriate safeguards can be imposed to ensure his presence during the trial. In the present case, the petitioner is only seeking issuance of a passport and not permission to travel abroad. If at any point of time the petitioner intends to leave the country, he shall necessarily obtain prior permission from the Court where the criminal case is pending. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Court below warrants interference.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order dated 02.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.712 of 2025 in C.C.No.3020 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is hereby set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to issue a No Objection Certificate for issuance of passport to the petitioner in Passport File No. VJ2065836890125, subject to his entitlement as per law. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not leave the country without obtaining prior permission from the Court where the criminal cases are pending against him.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.03.2026
Note: C.C by today b/o KKV
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 287/2026
Dt.10.03.2026
KKV