Partly allowed

Adudodla Kanna Reddy (wrongly shown as Kannareddy Thoom) v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2020CRLP/2714/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by allowing the respondents to dispense with their appearance in the proceedings under D.V.C. No. 96 of 2019, noting their relationship as parents, sisters, and brother-in-law of the accused.

What did the court decide?

Dispensing with the appearance of the petitioners A2 to A6 before the Court below in DVC No. 96 of 2019. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, to be dismissed.

Adudodla Kanna Reddy (wrongly shown… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2714 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Adudodla Kanna Reddy (wrongly shown as Kannareddy Thoom), S/o.Narayana Reddy aged 63 years Occ. Retd. Employee R/o.H.No.2-92 Bijinapally, Mahabubnagar District - 509203.

¶8

Adudodla Sugunamma, W/o.Kanna Reddy (wrongly shown as Sugunamma Thoom) Aged about 51 years Occ. Housewife R/o.H.No.2-92 Bijinapally, Mahabubnagar District - 509203.

¶9

Nellikanti Varalaxmi, W/o.Nagireddy D/o.Kanna Reddy, aged 36 years Occ. Housewife R/o.H.No.4-'10 Bijinapally Mahabubnagar District - 509 203

¶10

Sandhayagari Suvarna, W/o.S.Balavardhan Reddy D/o.Kanna Reddy, aged 34 years Occ. Housewife R/o.Flat No.201, Block-C Sriramnagar colony, Near Hanuman Temple Kondapur, Serilingampally, R.R.District - 500 084

¶11

Sandhayagari Balavardhan Reddy, S/o.Ranga Reddy aged 39 years Occ. Business Rt/o.Flat No.201, Block-C Sriramnagar colony, Near Hanuman Temple Kondapur, Serilingampally, R.R.District - 500 084

¶12

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS No. 2 to 6

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

Thoom Shirisha, W/o.A.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, aged about 28 years Occ.Housewife F/o.H. No.32-80-34, Neredmet, Malkajgiri R.R.District, Telangana

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to D.V.C.No.9612019 on the file of ll Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum XIX Addl. Metropolitan tMagistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri and quash the same.

¶18

LA. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the cedified copies of the complaint in D.V.C.No. 9612019 on the file of ll Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum XIX Addl. Ivletropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at ll,4a lkajgiri .

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crjminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in D.V.C.No. SOl2019 on the file of ll Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum XIX Addl. Metropolitan l\zlagistrate, Cyberabad at lValkajgiri pending disposal of the above Criminal petition pass

¶22

// //

¶23

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KADIYAL/ NEELAKANTESWARA RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and for the Respondent No. 2 not appearing in person or by Advocate

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

\ \

¶27

I'H[ }IO\OT Ii.,\I}I.I, SIII .'L S'I'I('}- K. I-,\KSHXI,\

¶28

C.Rl\ll\Al- PIll'ITIO\ \o.271-l OF 2020

¶29

()Rt)l.t Ir:

¶30

I'his appJication is flled to quash the proceedings in DVC No.96 of 2019 pending on the tlle the II Additional Junior Civil Judge curn XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

¶31

l'{eard Sri Kadil arn Neelakantes',vara Rao, learned counsel lor the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the lletitioners^{ale A2 to A6. They are parents, sisters and brother-in-law} ol Accused ;vo. L^'l-he)' are nothing to do rvith the ntatrirnonial Iife o1' .A I ancl thc 2"'r respondent.^'l'hoirgh the learned counscl lllccl this application to quash the procecdings in thc DVC. he rvould nou subrrit that he is restricting his relief to dispense with the appearance ol'the pctitioncrs herein in the DVC.

¶33

-1. Considering the said subrnission and also the tact that thc petitioners are parents, sisters and brother-in-law of Accr.rsed No.l. this Crirrinal Petition is disposed ol dispensing ri ith the appearance of the petitioners herein - A2 to ,46, befbre the Court below in DVC No.96 of 20 19.

¶34

Miscellar.reous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed

¶35

sd/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT RE RAR //TRUE COPY//

¶36

¶37

SECTI FICER

¶38

1' The Additional Junior civir judge cum xrx Additionar Metroporitan ^^{Magistrate.Cyberabad at liyde-rabad.}

¶39

Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 3. One CC to SRt. KAD|YAM NEELA-KANTESwAn'a nAOndrolie topucl

¶40

Two CD Copies

'5rz-

HIGH COURT

KLJ

DATED:1510912020

ORDER

s fA
e
o!) 2 2 SEP 2U0 z
.!'/l
{'.y'
*
P,f\i c.

¶47

CRLP.No.2714 of 2020

¶48

DISPOSIN-G OF THE CRL.PETITION.

¶49

i @ **"
I
>)..,

Adudodla Kanna Reddy (wrongly shown as Kannareddy Thoom) v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adudodla Kanna Reddy (wrongly shown as Kannareddy Thoom) v. The State of Telangana

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

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

Abhishek Maheshwaram Vs The State of Telangana and Another

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

P.V.R. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.M.Padma Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Bheemshetti Sridhar And Another Vs The State of Telangana And Another