IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.1101 OF 2009 Between: K.Usha Rani …Petitioner A n d Karampudi Venkata Lakshmi …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.1101 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 18-02-2008 in C.F.No.7735 of 2007 in C.C.No.336 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Avanigadda, wherein the first respondent herein was discharged and C.C.No.336 of 2007 was closed in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6200 of 2007 dated 26-10-2007. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the first respondent alleging that she made a false statement by filing a memo before the Court in C.C.No.146 of 2007 stating that the accused filed Crl.P.No.3261 of 2007 for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.146 of 2007 and that this Court stayed proceedings in C.C.No.146 of 2007 by interim orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.2598 of 2007 and, in fact, the Court dismissed Crl.P.No.3261 of 2007 by order dated 09-07-2007. This Court further directed the trial Court to prosecute the accused as per law for making a false representation before the trial after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and after going through the material papers on record the trial Court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 200 and 209 IPC in C.C.No.336 of 2007. On 14-11-2007, the accused made appearance and filed orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.A (Crl.) No.6200 of 2007 dated 26-10-2007 wherein it was directed as under: “Heard. The special leave petition is dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioner to apply for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Observation made by the High Court that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for making a false statement stands vacated.” 4. As seen from the above orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the observation made by this Court in the order dated 09-07-2007 in Crl.P.No.3261 of 2007 that it is a clear case where the petitioner gave a false statement before the Court for which she is liable to be prosecuted stood vacated. In view of the same, the proceedings initiated by the petitioner herein against the first respondent in C.C.No.336 of 2007 in pursuance of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 09-07-2007 in Crl.P.No.3261 of 2007 are no longer maintainable as the said observations of this Court was subsequently vacated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The basis for initiating the proceedings in C.C.No.336 of 2007 is, therefore, no longer in existence in view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Appeal. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate discharging the first respondent herein and closing C.C.No.336 of 2007 in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with. 5. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 5th August, 2009. Lrkm