Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 156(3), 397 & 401 — Order of Magistrate directing registration of FIR — Challenge — Subsequent filing of final report — Effect — Revision becomes infructuous. Where the petitioner (A-1) challenged the order of the Magistrate forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation, but during pendency of revision, the police, after investigation, filed a final report concluding that the dispute was civil in nature and no offence was made out,

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Before: The Honourable Sri Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Date: 5th November, 2025
Criminal Revision Case No. 2905 of 2017
[2025:APHC:46925]

CASE TITLE

Godugu Siva Kumar … Petitioner/Accused No.1
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and Another … Respondents

Counsel:
For Petitioner — Sri Balaji Medamalli
For Respondents — Public Prosecutor (A.P.)

HEADNOTES

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 156(3), 397 & 401 — Order of Magistrate directing registration of FIR — Challenge — Subsequent filing of final report — Effect — Revision becomes infructuous.

Where the petitioner (A-1) challenged the order of the Magistrate forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation, but during pendency of revision, the police, after investigation, filed a final report concluding that the dispute was civil in nature and no offence was made out,

Held, since the investigation was completed and the police filed a closure report, nothing further survived for adjudication in the revision.

Criminal Revision Case dismissed as infructuous; interim orders vacated; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Result: Revision dismissed as infructuous.

CASE FACTS

1. The 2nd respondent/complainant, Cherukuri Jayakrishna, filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, seeking a direction to the police to register a case against the petitioner (A-1) and others for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The learned Magistrate, by docket order dated 30.05.2017 in C.F.R. No.1342 of 2017, directed the Station House Officer, Chinna Chowk Police Station, Kadapa, to register an FIR and investigate.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/A-1 preferred the present Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., challenging the legality of the Magistrate’s order.

4. The petitioner also filed applications for condonation of 33 days’ delay (Crl.R.C.M.P. No.4727/2017) and for stay of all further proceedings including arrest (Crl.R.C.M.P. No.4728/2017) pending disposal of the revision.

5. During pendency, the police completed investigation and filed a final report before the Trial Court stating that the dispute was purely civil in nature, and hence, no criminality was made out.

HELD BY

Per T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J. —

• Since the police had already filed a final report concluding that the matter was civil and no offence was made out, the cause of action in the revision petition no longer survived.

• In view of the said development, the revision was rendered infructuous.

• The Court, therefore, recorded the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and dismissed the Criminal Revision Case as infructuous.

RESULT

• Criminal Revision Case dismissed as infructuous.

• Interim orders, if any, vacated.

• Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

• No order as to costs.

CITATION

Godugu Siva Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.,
Crl.R.C. No. 2905 of 2017, decided on 05-11-2025 (A.P. High Court, per T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.) = 2025:APHC:46925