Disposed proceedings and the threshold for infructuousness in criminal revision under CrPC clarified
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRLRC/423/2010 of B.KRUPENDER REDDY Vs SMT. MLAKSHMIKANTHAMMA & THE STATE OF A.P. |
| CNR | APHC010516372010 |
| Date of Registration | 02-03-2010 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a criminal revision challenging rejection of expert examination survives if the main case is disposed |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Once the main criminal case is disposed and the cause does not survive, the connected criminal revision challenging an interlocutory order becomes infructuous. The High Court will not adjudicate such revision when the underlying proceeding no longer exists. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner/accused filed a revision against an order refusing to send a cheque to handwriting expert. The status report revealed that the main case (C.C.No.188/2009) had been disposed on 12.08.2011, rendering the revision infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A criminal revision challenging an interlocutory order (e.g. refusal to send document to expert) does not survive after disposal of the main case.
- If the main criminal case has been decided, subsequent revisions concerning procedural orders in that case become infructuous.
- Lawyers should check the current status of the main proceedings before filing or pursuing criminal revisions on interlocutory orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the record and found that the revision challenged an order refusing to send a cheque for expert examination under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
- A status report from the e-Courts platform established that the main criminal case (C.C.No.188/2009) had already been disposed as of 12.08.2011.
- The Court concluded that since the main case no longer survives, the criminal revision has become infructuous. Therefore, no adjudication on merits was possible or warranted.
- Miscellaneous pending applications were also closed in consequence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the trial court’s refusal to send Ex.A1 cheque to handwriting expert for comparison.
Respondent
No specific arguments recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner/accused had filed a petition before the trial court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send Ex.A1 cheque to a handwriting expert for comparison. The trial court refused this request. The petitioner then preferred a criminal revision before the High Court challenging this refusal. During the pendency of revision, it was revealed that the underlying main criminal case had already been disposed on 12.08.2011.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 397 and 401 CrPC: Provide for revisionary powers of the High Court over subordinate criminal courts.
- Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act: Concerns expert opinion (here, relating to handwriting analysis).
- The judgment clarified that once the main case is disposed, the right to revision over an interlocutory procedural order becomes infructuous.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The case affirms existing law regarding the effect of disposal of main proceedings rendering associated revisions infructuous.