Disposed

Mupparapu Ngaraju v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC20 Apr 2021CRLP/3139/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused seeking to recall witnesses cross-examined partially. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application to re-call witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C., considering the trial court's compliance with virtual SOPs due to COVID-19.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-call PWs. 2 and 3 before the trial court.

Mupparapu Ngaraju Vs The State of Telangana and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN c IMINAL P ETITI NN :31 OF 21

¶5

Between:

¶6

Syed shabi Abbas @ shabbi @ Zain Abbas,, s/o"syed Hasan Abbas Aged about 32 years, Occ. Private Employee, Fl/o. H.No.22-2-622, Opp. Golkhaber Darulshafa, Hyderabad

¶7

..,PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad Through Station House Officer, CCS, Hyderabad

¶10

...RESPONDENT/GOMPLAINANT

¶11

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in Order dated 06-04-2021 passed in SC.No-272 ot 2014 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Court to Atrocities against Women-ll-CU[/-Xl Addl. [/letropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by way of recalling the PW-2 and PW-3 for cross examination.

¶12

LA. NO: 2OF 2021

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be^pleased to stay of all further proceedings in SC.No.272 of 2014 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Court to Atrocities against Women -ll- CUM-Xl Addl. N/etropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,^pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. A- K, TUUKHEED ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the sole Respondent.

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

TIIE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN} CRIMINAL^{PETITION No.3193of 2O2l}

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

Heard learned^{counsel for the petitionerand Learned} Public Prosecutor.^{Perusedthe record'}

¶19

The petitioner herein^{is accusedin S'C'No'272 of 2Ol4} pending on the file of the^{Special Sessions Judge for Fast} Track Court to Atrocities^{against Women-II} -^cum -^{XI Addl'} Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^{Hyderabad. The offences alleged} against the petitioner herein are under^{Sections 376 and 384} of IPC and Section 66-E of Information Technologr Act.^The said S.C. was posted to 30-03-202 1 for the^purpose of crossexamination of PW2 and it was adjourned. PWs.2 and 3 were cross-examined in part and the petitioners sought time for further cross-examination of PWs.2 and 3. The Court below refused to grant adjournment. Therefore, the petitioners herein filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., vide Cr1.P.No.7236 of 2O2O and this Court vide order dated 22-032O2l allowed the said Criminal Petition and quashed the order dated 16-12-2020 in Cri.M.P.No.68 of 2O2O in S.C.No.272 of 2014 and directed the Court below to permit the petitioner to further cross-examine PWs.2 and 3 and petitioner shall complete the cross-examination on or before

¶20

¶21

26-03_2021, failing which, the Court below sha_ll proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.

¶22

Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter is posted to 06_04_2021 for the purpose of cross_examination of pWs.2 and 3. The petitioner has engaged Mr.N. Raman as counsel in Court below and he tested positive due to COVID_2019. On the said ground, the petitioner herein requested the Court below to adjourn the matter but the Court below refused to adj ourn the matter on the ground that this Court fixed time frame in the above said order and thus, closed the cross-examination of pWs.2 and 3.

¶23

As stated above, it is not in dispute that this Court directed the petitioner to complete the cross-examination of PWs.2 and 3 on or before 26-03-2021. But it is the specific case of the petitioner that learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court below tested positive due to COVID-l9. But the Court below did not consider the same on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any document including the treatment particulars to show that his counsel underwent treatment for the same.

¶24

Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not in a position to file copies of the said medical reports due to the present situation

¶25

¶26

and he^{has filed the said medical reports along with the} present application^{before this Court'}

¶27

Considering^{the said fact and also the fact that this} Court has^{issuedSOP directing all the Subordinate Courtsto} undertake^{proceedings virtually due toCOVID-19' this} Criminal Petition^{isdisposed of granting iiberty tothe} petitioner to file appropriate^{application under Section311 of} Cr.P.C., to re-call^{PWs.2 and 3 and the Courtbelow shall} consider the same^{on imposition of certain conditions to its} satisfaction and specifically^{considering the SOP issued by} this Court. It is made^{clearthat the petitioner shall cooperate} with the trial Court in concluding^{the trial.}

¶28

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending in this^Petition,

¶29

shall stand closed.

¶30

¶31

Sd/-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT R,hGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 149

¶32

SECTIOT\i OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

The Special Sessions Judge for Fast Track Court to Atrocities against Women - ll - cum - Xl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶35

The Station House Officer, CCS, Hyderabad

¶36

One CC to SRI M.A.K"MUKHEED Advocate [OPUC]

¶37

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶38

Two CD Copies.

YTL

HtGH COURT

DATED:20/0412021

ORDER

CRLP.No.3193 of 2021

t t
ttt, .t' t ly
a
!!
$$
! ),,

¶45

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶46

o*ra Xlc^I

¶47

Mupparapu Ngaraju v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mupparapu Ngaraju 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

Smt.D.Asha Latha Vs The State of telangana

Syed Mustafa Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Seshagiri Rao and another Vs State of Telangana

Kowkuntla Varalaxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Zakir Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Azher Vs The State of Telangana