Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/424/2024 of Parvathareddy Rama Krishna, Vs Parvathareddy Syamala, on 6 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. PARVATHAREDDY RAMA KRISHNA,, S/O. SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36
APHC010211822024
IN THE H
(
SATURDAY
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. PARVATHAREDDY R
AGED ABOUT 36 YEA
401, 5TH LANE, PO
TEMPLE, NELLORE
1. PARVATHAREDDY S
ABOUT 32 YEARS. P
2. PARVATHAREDDY S
ABOUT 11 YEARS. ST
3. PARVATHAREDDY S
ABOUT 10 YEARS.
AND 3 ARE MINORS,
RESPONDENT/1ST P
LINE, SRINIVASARA
4. STATE OF A P, REP
OF ANDHRA PRADES
Revision filed under
circumstances
stated
in
CriminalRevisionCase, the
tocall for the records re
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Y,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
L REVISION CASE NO: 424/2024
RAMA KRISHNA,, S/O. SRINIVASA RAO
ARS. EX. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O.D
OSTAL COLONY, BEHIND RAJARA
TOWN, NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PE
AND
SYAMALA, W/O. RAMA KRISHNA, HIND
RIVATE EMPLOYEE.
SANDHYA, D/O. RAMA KRISHNA, HIND
TUDENT.
SAHITHI, D/O. RAMA KRISHNA, HIND
STUDENT. RESPONDENTS/PETITI
, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
PETITIONER AND R/O. D.NO.25-17-4
AOPET,GUNTUR.
. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIG
SH AT AMARAVATI
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t
n
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
High Court may be pleased tomay b
elating to the order dt.11.01.2023
RATAPA
O, HINDU,
D.NO.25-1-
AJESWARI
TITIONER
DU, AGED
DU, AGED
DU, AGED
ONERS 2
, I.E., 1ST
437/1, 5TH
H COURT
NDENT(S):
that in the
t
of
the
be pleased
passed in
Crl.M.P.No.236 of 2022 in FCOP N0.81 of 2020 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court cum - XII Additional District Judge, Gunturand set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 condone the delay of (350 ) days in filing the above CRL
RC. filed against the order, dated 11.01.2023, on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court - cum - XII Additional District Judge, Guntur,and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024
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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dt.11.01.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.236 of 2022 in FCOP NO.81 of 2020 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court - cum - XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.ALAPATI LALITH NIKHIL
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.Y KOTESWARA RAO
2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2024
IN/AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:424/2024
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.
COMMON ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking to set aside the order dated 11.01.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No.236 of 2022 in F.C.O.P. No.81 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court–cum–XII Additional District Judge, Guntur.
2. I.A. No.1 of 2024 is filed to condone the delay of 350 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the delay in filing the revision is neither willful nor wanton, but occurred due to the petitioner approaching counsel belatedly. It is further contended that unless the delay is condoned, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is an inordinate delay of 350 days and no satisfactory or convincing explanation has been offered by the petitioner. It is further contended that the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference and therefore seeks dismissal of both the application and the revision.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the explanation offered for condonation of delay is vague and not supported by sufficient cause. The petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay of 350 days. Even otherwise, this Court has perused the order under revision. The scope of interference in a revision is limited to examining the legality, propriety, or correctness of the impugned order. This Court does not find any illegality, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. The findings recorded are based on appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, on merits also, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed.
7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.03.2026 KKV
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 424/2024 Dt.07.03.2026
KKV