Disposed

Dr.N.Ranganayakulu v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC15 Apr 2014CRLP/1088/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal petition for quashing an FIR filed over civil disputes. Observing the petitioner's age and profession, the court dispensed with his presence for further adjournments in the trial court subject to conditions. The petition is disposed of without a merits-based quashing decision at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner's presence dispensed for adjournments with conditions to appear as directed and cooperate with trial court.

Dr.N.Ranganayakulu Vs The State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1088 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.230 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶4

Heard both sides.

¶5

Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there are long standing civil disputes between the defacto complainant, petitioner and his sons; and the charge sheet allegations do not disclose any offence against the petitioner and he is falsely implicated because of his relationship with A1 and A2. He further submitted that this is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and the proceedings are to be quashed.

¶6

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that police after due investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner along with the other accused and that there is prima facie material in support of the allegations leveled in the charge sheet.

¶7

I have perused the material papers filed along with the criminal petition.

¶8

Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the parties and there is a counter case in which the complainant, i.e., second respondent herein is figured as accused which is subject matter of Crime No.150 of 2004

¶9

of Nallakunta P.S.

¶10

Now, at this stage, correctness of the allegations and the counter allegations cannot be decided and those aspects have to be considered by the trial Court after examining the witnesses. Since the petitioner is aged person and Doctor by profession I feel that dispensing with his presence for each and every adjournment of the criminal case, the criminal petition is to be disposed of.

¶11

For the above reasons, the criminal petition is disposed of by observing that the presence of petitioner herein is dispensed with for his appearance for each and every adjournment in C.C.No.30 of 2007 subject to the condition that he shall appear before the Court as and when directed by the trial Court and on further condition that he should cooperate with the lower Court for trial of the case.

¶12

_______________________ _ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶13

15^TH April, 2014 KSM

Dr.N.Ranganayakulu v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.N.Ranganayakulu v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagineni Ravi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kilaru Indira, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Padmalaya Telefilms Limited., Vs a.Mallikarjuna

Nasreen Banu, Vs Smt. Firdous Fatima

V.K.Kumaravadivelu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Suman Kumar Vs The State of Ap., Rep.by its