Andhra Pradesh High Court
WRIT PETITION 37014/2014 on 2 December 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AM(Special Original Jurisdiction) [ARAVATI ]
[ 2990 ]
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR[UARY ]
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUAR
RY
THE HONOUAO
IA 1 OF 2015
WRIN IT PETITION NO: 37014 OF 2014
Between:
1. Dasari Surya Prakasa Rao,, S/o.Rama Rao, Aged about 56 years, RIo.D.No.9-21, Salipeta, Akiveedu Village & Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. RIo.D.No.9-21, Salipeta, Akiveedu Village & Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
...PETITIONERS
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its, Principal SDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Andhra
3. The Station House Officer, Eluru I Town Police Station, EluruDistrict, Andhra Pradesh. District, Andhra Pradesh.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Sectin the affidavit filed in supion 151 CPC praying that in the circuport of the petition, the High Court mamstances stated y be pleased to order stay all further procd 31.10.2014 on the file of I Town Police St Petition under Sectin the affidavit filed in supamstances stated y be pleased To Review the order passed in W.P.No. 37014/2014, dated: 2.12.2014 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Responde The Court made the follow
ORDER :-
Page 1 of 2
Heard Mr. Maheswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home for the review petitioners/ respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.37014 of 2014 and Mr. M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the respondent/ writ petitioner.
This review application has been filed for quashing the case in Crime No.240 of 2014 is pending consideration and apart from that the criminal petition for quashing the earlier crime is also pending consideration. In view of the said, review the order dated 02.12.2014 passed in W.P.No.37014 of 2014.
Learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents submitted that the respondents have been complied with the order of this Court.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/ writ petition that as per Section 362 of Cr.P.C no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Therefore the review application is not maintainable and hence the application is liable to be dismissed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the counsel, this review petition is not maintainable at this stage as per Section 362 of Cr.P.C the review petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.
_____________________________
_______DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
KK
KK
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
IA 1 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 37014 OF 2014
23.02.2024
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…