Dismissed

Balivada Krishna Rao v. The State of A.P

Telangana HC3 Jan 2017CRLP/12/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to pass a composite order dispensing with petitioners' appearance under Cr.P.C. Section 205 or Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice. Instead, the Court directed petitioners to file specific applications in the trial court regarding dispensation of appearance.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to file separate applications under Section 205 Cr.P.C. or Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice before the trial court for dispensing with their appearance.

Balivada Krishna Rao Vs The State of A.P — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This criminal petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.584 of 2016 pending on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on various

¶5

grounds.

¶6

During hearing, Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, requested to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners in C.C. No.584 of 2016 pending before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, without inviting the order on merits.

¶7

No doubt, the first petitioner is aged about 65 years, second petitioner is aged about 59 years, and petitioners 3 and 4 are aged about 35 and 40 years respectively and expressing their difficulty to attend the court in connection with the C.C. referred above. However the relief claimed in the petition is to quash the proceedings in the C.C. referred above. But this court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and pass an order to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners in the C.C. referred above exercising power under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. or under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

¶8

CRLP_12_2017 MSM, J

¶9

¶10

In any view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to file a petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. or under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice before the trial court, to dispense with their appearance or represent any one of them , after due service of notice on the second respondent. On filing such application, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶11

Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶12

___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 03.01.2017 BV

Balivada Krishna Rao v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balivada Krishna Rao 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramila Vs State of Telangana

N. Kasthuri Reddy , Kasthuraiah, Vs N. Rajaram Reddy

Devishetty Balaji Vs The State of Telangana

C.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Muni Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Challa Venkateswara Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravula Keshavdas S/o R. Bhojanna Vs The State of Telangana