Dismissed

Darshnam Lalitha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Apr 2014CRLP/719/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court observed that the traits of the petitioner are irrelevant to the criminal charges. It dispensed with the trial, recognized that the Additional First Class Magistrate shall appear before the trial at the admission stage, and directed the misce to stand closed.

What did the court decide?

Trial of the case dispensed with and closed for the petitioner; additional first class Magistrate to appear for admission stage.

Darshnam Lalitha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

H O N ’ B L E S R I J U S T I

¶2

C R I M I N A L P E T I T I O N

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

T h i s C r i m i n a l P e t i t

¶5

C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e C o p r o c e e d i n g s i n C r i m e S t a t i o n , W a r a n g a l U r b r e g i s t e r e d f o r t h e o f f e C o d e , 1 8 6 0 a n d u n d e r A c t , 1 9 6 1 . H e a r d t h e l e a r n e d c

¶6

l e a r n e d P u b l i c P r o s e c u L e a r n e d c o u n s e l f o r

¶7

c o m p l a i n a n t i m p l i c a t e d R e p Ho re t . f u r t h e rs t ps eu t b i mt i ot sn n d

¶8

G o v e r n m e n t p Te et ia t c i ho en r e , r 2 r d

¶9

e m p l o y p e e e t ,i t 3i o n e r i s a G t h

¶10

S a n g a r e d d y , Mp e dt ia t k i o Dn ie sr S i n g , at ph5 po er et i t i o n e r i s r e^t h p e t i t i o n e Hr e i fs u ra t hs et ru d se un bt a r e n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h h a r a s s t h e m , c o m p l a i n a P e r u s e d t h e m a t e r i a l I n t h e F . I . R . t n hd re e sa pl

¶11

l i v e d w i t h h e r h u s b a n d a c c o r d i n g t o a l l e g a t i o t h a t h o u s e a n d t h e y i l l

¶12

R s . 2 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 / - .

¶13

L e a r n e d P u b l i c P r o s

¶14

w a s c o m p l e t e d a n d p o l c r i m e .

¶15

L e a r n e d c o u n s e l f o r

¶16

f a m i l y m e m b e r s a r e i m p t h e y a r e f a c i n g h a r d s h S i n c e t h e c h a r g e s h

¶17

F . I . R . c o n t e n t s a t t h i s o b j e c t i o n s r a i s e d b y t c o n s i d e r e d d u r i n g t r i a

¶18

H o w e v e r , s i n c e a l l

¶19

m e m b e r s o f h e r h u s b a n r e t i r e d a n d s o m e o f t h t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f p d i s p e n s e d w i t h a n d w i t h a s t o b e d i s p o s e d o f . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e p r e

¶20

t r i a l o f t h e C a s e r e g i s 2 0 1 1 o f W o m We an r a,P no ogl nai cl te h A d d i t i o n a l F i r s t C l a s s w i t h i n r e s p e c t o f p e t s h a l l a p p e a r b e f o r e t h e W i t h t h i s , t h e C r i m

¶21

a d m i s s i o n s t a g e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , m i s c e l

¶22

s h a l l s t a n d c l o s e d .

¶23

--------------------------------

¶24

S . R A V I

¶25

D a t e : 0 1 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 4 . b v

Darshnam Lalitha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshnam Lalitha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Sri Pericherla Vijaya Anand Kumar , Kumar, Vs Smt Pericherla Satya (Gokaraju)

Poluri Ranga Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bala Ananthamma, Vs Balaji Chandrasekhar Babu, , Balaji Chandrasekhar Chowdary

Ganduri Shankar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Jaleel, Vs Stae of A.P.

B. Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh