IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 587 of 2010 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgment in NO : dated ______ on the file of the Court of the to allow this Crl.R.C., and direct the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Chintalapudi to take congnizance of C.C.S.R.No.2420 of 2009 on its file and issue summons to respondents 1 & 2.,preferred against the order in __________________ dated ______ on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi) Between: Kuchipudi Surya Prasad, S/o Janardhana Rao, R/o Dharmajigudem (V) & P.S.Limits. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Kuchipudi Ramamohana Rao, S/o Janardhana Rao, R/o Dharmajigudem (V) & P.S.Limits. 2 Kuchipudi Janardhana Rao, S/o Surayya, R/o Dharmajigudem (V) & P.S.Limits. 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the S.H.O., Dharmajigudem, W.G.Dist., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NARAM.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : ..... REGISTRAR PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 587 of 2010 Judgment Head the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. Alienation of the property during the pendency of the suit, particularly when there is no order directing not to alienate the property, cannot be said to be an offence under section 420 IPC. There are absolutely no merits to entertain the revision case. 3. The revision case is dismissed. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. March 29, 2010. *BVS