Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1221/2025 of Gorrela Rama Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1221/2025 Between: 1. GORRELA RAMA RAO, S/O. (LATE) SRIRAMULU, AGED
APHC010550122025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1221/2025
Between:
1. GORRELA RAMA RAO, S/O. (LATE) SRIRAMULU, AGED ABOUT 73
YEARS, R/O. H.NO.24-6/5-19, 4TH ROAD, CHANAKYAPURI COLONY, ELURU
TOWN
AND
DISTRICT
(ERNST
WEST
GODAVARI
DISTRICT).
2. GORRELA JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 69
YEARS, R/O.H.NO.24-6/5-19, 4TH ROAD, CHANAKYAPURI COLONY, ELURU
TOWN
AND
DISTRICT,
(ERNST
WEST
GODAVARI
DISTRICT).
3. GORRELA SUDHA RANI, D/O. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. H. NO.24-6/5-19, 4TH ROAD, CHANAKYAPURI COLONY, ELURU
TOWN AND DISTRICT, (ERNST WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT).
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI.
2. GORRELA ALIAS PEDDINTI ANUSHA, W/O. SUDHAKAR, D/O.
PEDDINTI SESHU BABU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, H.NO.40-5/7-27, 7TH ROAD, SANTHI NAGAR, ELURU TOWN AND DISTRICT (ERNST
WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT).
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. GANDHAM SR PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
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 is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the
Petitioners against the Order dated 23.09.2025 passed in D.V.C.No.52 of 2024 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mobile Court, Eluru.
2. Heard Sri Gandham S.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the alleged service of summons on Respondent No.1 at Budapest, Hungary, merely on the basis of a memo filed by the counsel for the complainant, without proper proof of service, is erroneous. It is further submitted that the memo is not maintainable, the objections filed by the Petitioners on 31-07-2025 were not considered, and the postal tracking does not establish valid service of summons.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the learned trial Judge has rightly observed that the learned counsel for the Petitioners herein has no locus standi to make any submissions as he has not filed any vakalatnama for Respondent No.1. It is further submitted that any representation or objection concerning Respondent No.1 must be made either by Respondent No.1 or by his counsel. It is represented that the matter is adjourned to 10.03.2026 before the trial Court.
5. Having considered the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge has rightly observed that the counsel appearing for the Petitioners cannot raise objections regarding service of summons on
Respondent No.1 in the absence of any vakalatnama filed on his behalf. The issue relating to service of summons on Respondent No.1 is a matter that can be agitated only by Respondent No.1 or by his authorized counsel. In the absence of locus standi on the part of the Petitioners to question the service of summons on Respondent No.1, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court warranting interference under the present proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, Petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to the Respondent No.2 / Wife by the next date of adjournment i.e., 10.03.2026 before the trial Court.
Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.03.2026 Dinesh
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.R.C.No.1221 of 2025
Dt.06.03.2026
Dinesh