Partly allowed

The Managing Director, v. Gnangarapollu Jayashree

Telangana HC8 Aug 2017CRLP/6977/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition challenging an impugned docket order directing specific accused A.3 and A.5 to appear although they were represented by special vakalath holders under Section 205 Cr.P.C, setting aside the order to the extent of physical presence requirement.

What did the court decide?

The docket order dated 19.07.2017 setting aside the docket order dated 19.07.2017 to the extent of directing A.3 and A.5 to appear.

The Managing Director, Vs Gnangarapollu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6977 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A.3 and A.5 in C.C. No.414 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, on the private complaint taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, and learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶5

The learned Magistrate permitted the petitioners/ A.3 and A.5 to represent through special vakalath holder under Section 205 Cr.P.C vide Crl.M.P. Nos.578 and 579 of 2013.

¶6

However, the impugned docket order dated 19.07.2017

¶7

reads as under:

¶8

“Complainant absent. Petition filed and allowed. A1 to A4 and A10 absent. Petition filed and allowed. Spl. Vakalath for A7, A9, A3, A5, A7 and A11. All the accused are directed to appear on the next date of hearing to face examination. Otherwise NBW will be issued against the absent accused. Call on 09.08.2017.”

¶9

Thus, by the impugned docket order, the learned Magistrate directed all the accused to appear. There is nothing even to answer any charges, if at all framed from the recording of the evidence as per the private warrant case procedure. Once permitted to represent through special vakalat holder but for answering any charges under Section 313 Cr.P.C examination insisting on the physical presence of A.3 and A.5 does not arise.

¶10

¶11

Dr.SSRB,J Crlp_6977_2017

¶12

Having regard to the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, setting aside the docket order dated 19.07.2017 to the extent of directing A.3 and A.5 to appear, since they are represented through special vakalat holder. However, it is made clear that whenever their appearance is required to comply, more particularly, for the examination of charges and examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C or the like.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________________________ JUSTICE Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶15

Date: 08.08.2017 knl

The Managing Director, v. Gnangarapollu Jayashree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, v. Gnangarapollu Jayashree

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

Sibbala Venkata Ramana Vs The State of A.P

Vakkalagadda Bhaskar Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Anjan Goud,Pavan, Vs The State of Telangana.

K. Lingam Vs K. Varalaxmi

Mr Naveen Nischal, Vs The State of A.P.

Sufi Mohammed Nayeemuddin Vs The State of Telangana