MR.KANURU v. THE STATE OF AP REP PP & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 397, 401
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 45
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as infructuous. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 05.11.2025 M K K ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2785/2017 Between:
1. MR.KANURU VIJAYAWADA, S/O.NAGABHUSHANAM, R/O. D.NO. 64/9-14, PATAMATALANKA, NEAR RAMALAYAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 010. VENKATESWARA RAO, ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP REP PP AND ANR, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD.
2. SMT BALINA MADHAVI LATHA, W/O.SEKHAR BABU, R/O.FLAT IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA NO.305, SRINIVASA TOWERS, DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto set s side the order dated 13-10- 2017 in Crl.M.P.No.3924 of 2017 in C.C.No.80 of 2015 on the file of the II Special Magistrate, at Vijayawada, and consequently to send the alleged instruments Exhibit No.1 Cheque to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Lab to ascertain the age of the alleged instruments and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2017 (CRLRCMP 4546 OF 2017) 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 to Stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of order dated 13-10-2017 in C.C.No.830 of 2015 on the file of the II Special Magistrate, at Vijayawada, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Petition and pass such other order or orders deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to extend the interim order dt 20-02-2018 in Crl.R.C.MP.No.4546 of 2017 in Crl.RC No. 2785 of 2017 on the file of this Hon’ble court until further orders and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V V PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.2785 of 2017
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 13.10.2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3924 of 2017 in C.C.No.830 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Special Magistrate, at Vijayawada.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Criminal Revision Case has become infructuous due to disposal of C.C.No.830 of 2015, which ended up in acquittal.
As seen from the record Crl.M.P.No.3924 of 2017 was filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the Ex.P1 cheque to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, to ascertain the age of the signature and age of ink in the columns of the cheque. Against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.3924 of 2017, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
In view of the disposal of C.C.No.830 of 2015, this Criminal Revision Case has become infructuous.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as infructuous. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 05.11.2025 M K K ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 397, 401; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 45.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Nov 2025. The bench was T MALLIKARJUNA RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.