Abhishek Maheshwaram v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC14 Sept 2020CRLP/1956/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In IA No.3 of 2020 before the High Court of Telangana, the petitioner sought a three-month extension to appear in court due to international travel restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The High Court directed the police to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the disposal of a lookout notice and extended the time granted for appearance by three months from the date of the or

What did the court decide?

Extension of three months for the petitioner to appear before the trial court from the date of the order.

Abhishek Maheshwaram Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN

¶6

LA. NO. 3 0F 2020 t\

¶7

CRI\llNAl. PII II'l lO\ \O: 195(r OI.- 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Abhishek Maheshwaram, S/o.Upender Maheshwaram Represented by GPA Holder and Natural father, Upender [t4aheshwaram, S/o.Late Agaiah l,4aheshwaram, Aged about 69 Years, Occ. Business, H.No.5-B-136 and 137, Kishanpura, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, T.S. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana , Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

Smt. P. Sindhu, W/o. Abhishek Maheshwaram, Age 27 years, Occ. Student (Doctor), R/o. H.No. 12-13-677123, Kimpty Colony, Street No. I, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to take up the present petition as a "For Being l,4entioned" for the purposes of clarify or passing necessary directions as deemed fit by this Hon"ble Court in the other I A NO.2 of 2020, in Crl.P.No.1956 ol 2020, as the said relief is concomitant with the relief granted by this Hon'ble Court on 1410912020 in the instant petition.

¶14

Crl.P.No. 1956 of 2020

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the direction d|.1810112020 passed by the learned lVth Addl. Ivletropolitan Sessions Judge while dismissing the Crl.R.P.No.117 of 2016 in Crl.M.P.No.2264 of 2016 in C.C.No.63B of 2017 (Cr.No.768 of 2015) to lhe extent of directing petitioner to appear before the trial court to attend the trial within two months from the date of the said order and in default to forfeit the surety amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs furnished by the petitioner towards security for his appearance and to be paid as a compensation to the defacto complainant, being beyond the scope of the revision and to direct the petitioner to appear before the trail court in C.C.No.63B of 2017 pending on the file of Xlllth Addl. Chief Metropolitan l\rlagistrate, Nampally as and when the trial is commenced by the trial court in respect of the petitioner herein, subject to the prosecution obtaining prior sanction of the central government U/s.1BB of Cr.P.C.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and the order of this Court dated 14109/2020 in Crl.P.No.1956/2020, upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. TULSI RAJ GOKUL, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K. Surender, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

Vide order dated 14.09,2020, this Court disposed of Crl.P.No.1956 of 2020 directing the Police, WPS, CCS, Hyderabad, to consider the representation of the petitioner daled 10.09.2020 and pass appropriate orders rn accordance with law within a

¶19

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that ordr:r. lt is further directed that the Police shall ccnsider the order dated 03.05.2016 in Crl. N4. P.No.2264 of 2016 in C.C.No.638 of 2017 passed by Xlll Additional Chief Metropoli'an Magistrate (lr/ahila Court), Hyderabad (for short, ACIr/tr/, Hyderabad), wherein therr: rs a specific direction to the Police concerned to recall the lookout notice issued agains:1h€, petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.2264 of 2016 seeking a^,lirection to the Police to withdraw or recall the lookout notice issued against him and the AN/SJ, Hyderabad allowed the same by order dated 03.05.2016 directing the concern-.d Police to recall the lookout notice alrealy ssued against the petitioner. Feeling algrieved by the said order, the State filed Crl.R.P.No.117 of 2016 before the Alr/SJ llyderabad and the same was dismissed on 18.01 .2020. ln the said order, thenl is a finding that the accused shall appear before the ACMM, Hyderabad, to face the trial within two months from the date of that order, and in compliance of the order of this C;ourt in Crl.P.No.4172 o'f 2016 dated 28.03.2016, failing which, the personal bond for ,r sum of Rs.3,00,0001 with one surety executed by the petitioner/accused at the time o" receiving the^passpod shall be forfeited anC the same shall be paid to the de factr complainant towards compensation. Thereafler, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.533 of 201i0 in C.C.No.638 of 2017 io recall the lookout notice. The ACMM, Hyderabad, vide c,rde'dated 06.03.2020, has dismissed the said application. Challenging the said order the^petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition i.e., Crl.P.No.1956 of 2020 under Sec,ti:n 482 of Cr.P.C. ln the present Criminal Pelition, the^petitioner also filed l.A.No.2 of^:2()20 seeking extension of time period by another three months for appearance of the^petitioner before the ACI\4|V, Hyderabad. This Court disposed of Crl.P.No.1956 of 2020 vide order dated 14.09.2020 directin!l the Police to consider the representation cf the^petitioner dated 10.09.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that t^.ro letitioner has filed LA.No.2 of 2020 in Cr.P.No.1956 of 2020 seeking extension of tim''^period by another three months for his appearance, but that was not considerel in the order dated 14.09.2020. He would furlher submit that in the order dated 18.)1 .2020, there is a finding that in the event of accused fails to appear before the AC:N1lV, Hyderabad, within the time frame, the personal bond executed by him would be forfr:ited and the same shall be paid to the de facto complainant towards compensation.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further subrnii that the^petitioner could not come to lndia from Canada and appear before the ACIVN/, Hyderabad, due to COVID-19 pandemic situation. There is no^permission to the ln..ernational Flights to^fly, and sought extension of three months time.

¶23

Considering the said facts and also the fact that this Ooud, vide order dated 14.09.2020, directed the Police to consider the representation rrf the petitioner dated 10.09.2020 in view of the order dated 03.05.2016 in Crl.N4 F'.t\lo.2264 of 2016 in

¶24

C.C.No.63B ol 2017 passed by the AClVtt/, Hyderabad, directing the concerned Police to recall lookout notice issued against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to extend the time granted to the petitioner in the order dated 18.01.2020 in Crl.R.P.No.117 of 2016 passed by the Alt/SJ, Hyderabad by three months from today. lt is made clear that the petitioner/accused fails to appear before the ACMM, Hyderabad, to face trial in C.C.No.638 ol 2017 within three months time, the order dated 18.01 .2020 in Crl.R.P.No.1 17 of 2016 passed by the AIVSJ, Hyderabad, will come into operation.

¶25

Accordingly, this application is ordered

¶26

Sd/.I.NAGA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ( Mahila Court ), Hyderabad.

¶32

The Station House Officer, W.P.S. CCS, Hyderabad.

¶33

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶34

One CC to Sri A. Tulsi Raj Gokul, Advocate (OPUC)

¶35

One CC to Sri K. Surender, Advocate (OPUC)

¶36

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

KLJ

DATED:23109i2-020

ORDER I.A. NO. 3 0F 2020 IN CRLP.No.1956 of 2020

¶42

{ itE S rA
(
{:
c
to 0 0 ocl2u0
fl)
o*ry'
Di-:..,,Tat':i

¶43

ORDERING THE I.A.^''IO. 3 OF 2O2O

¶44

@ X,f"

Abhishek Maheshwaram v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Maheshwaram v. The State of Telangana and Another

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

Mathangi Upendher Vs The State of Telangana

Khaliq Ansari Vs The State of Telangana

M/S.Sanghi Spinners India Ltd. and 2 Others Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Dr.Pothireddy Surendranath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Bonagiri Srinivas, And Another Vs The State of Telanangana, And another

Srungaram Narsimha And 3 Others Vs State of Telangana