Dismissed

Dontaraju Sudha Venugopala Murthy , Venu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Sept 2014CRLP/9569/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in a case involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Act was withdrawn by the petitioner with court permission. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn while granting liberty to approach the Trial Court for discharge.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an application for discharge before the Trial Court if not already framed.

Dontaraju Sudha Venugopala Murthy , Venu Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9569 of 2014

¶3

ORDER

¶4

The petitioners, who is sole accused, filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of all further proceedings in S.C.No.23 of 2014 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (v) and 3 (1) (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶5

While dealing with the scope of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Redd y^[1] , observed as under:-

¶6

It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code.(KAVITA V. STAT E^[2] and B.S. JOSHI V. STATE OF HARYAN A³ ) If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

¶7

In view of the judgment in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu (1 supra) learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Criminal Petition with liberty to file an application for discharge before the Trial Court.

¶8

The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to file an application for discharge, in case charges are

¶9

not already framed, and uninfluenced by filing of the present Criminal Petition the Learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶10

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶11

02.09.2014 gkv

¶12

[1] 2011(2) ALD (Crl.) 948 (SC) [2] 2000 Cr LJ 315 3 (2003) 4 SCC 675

Dontaraju Sudha Venugopala Murthy , Venu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dontaraju Sudha Venugopala Murthy , Venu v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Bapuji, Vs The State of Telangana

Thanagala Murali, Vs State of Telangana

Karnala Devamurthy Vs The State of Telangana

S.Shankariah Vs T. Yesupadam

Gore Pavan Kumar Vs The Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited

S. Ganesh Babu Vs The State of Telangana