IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRL.P.NO.3866 OF 2009. Date:10.03.2010 Between:- M.Pochaiah ..Petitioner And Mekala Gangamani @ Vijaya and others .. Respondents ORDER:- Heard the learned counsel. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “the Code” for the purpose of convenience) praying to quash the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1722 of 2007 in M.C.No.47 of 2006 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor, which was confirmed by the order dated 04.05.2009 in Crl.R.P.No.32 of 2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, having formulated the point for consideration at Para No.5, after recording reasons, ultimately, dismissed the Revision petition. In fact, the learned Judge observed as hereunder: “ On perusal of the grounds of Revision Petition and various Crl.M.Ps. filed by the each party before the court below, it goes to show that father’s name of the Revision Petitioner/respondent herein has been amended through Crl.M.P.No.2481/2007 and it is a contested order and he has not preferred any Revision aggrieved by the said order. It is only when the attachment warrant has been issued, the present Revision Petition has been filed contending that petition M.C.No.47/2006 is an ex parte order and he filed the petition to set aside the ex parte order and that without passing orders on the set aside petition warrant has been issued and also he is disputing the parentage of the second respondent herein. Therefore, I am of the considered view that Revision Petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands because on one hand he contends that he has no notice of issuance of warrant and again he claims that father’s name of the respondent was rectified in Crl.M.P.No.2481/2007 and no Revision has been preferred. If at all any set aside petition is filed before Court below, he should have insisted the Magistrate to pass order on set aside petition on priority. I am of the considered view that there are no grounds in the present petition filed aggrieved by the fresh warrant issued against this Revision Petitioner, and the paternity of the second respondent cannot be questioned at this stage and he has to question the same by Revision against the Crl.M.P.No.2481/07. If at all any Set aside petition is pending, the learned JFCM, Armoor is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously on merits.” 4. In the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge, it is not a fit matter to interfer with under Section 482 of the Code. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _​_____________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 10th March, 2010 AMD