Dismissed

Thota Venkateswarlu , Kondal and another v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Nov 2021CRLP/3531/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge examined a petition filed by accused persons seeking quashal of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations involved kidnapping. The court held that since the allegations constitute a cognizable offence, the proceedings were not an abuse of process, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 3531 of 2021 is disposed of; petitioners advised to seek discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial court.

Thota Venkateswarlu , Kondal and another Vs The… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3531 OF 2021

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Thota Venkateswarlu @ Kondal, S/o Late Brahmaiah, Aged about 43 years, Caste. Kanchari, Occ. LIC Agent (lD 1486735), Devarakonda Branch, SecAnderabad Division, Fl/o H.No. 4-4, Angadi Kurmapalli (V), Chintapalli (tt/), Nalgonda District, presently residing at C/o Rachamalla Yadaiah, Near Bus Stand, Mall (V) and (M), Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Thota Dyva Chari, S/o Late Brahmaiah, Aged about 30 years, Caste. Kanchari, R/o Road No.3, Green Park Colony, Right Side Lane,4th House, Karmanghat. Saroornagar (M), Ranga Reddy District, N/o H.No. 4-4, Angadi Kurmapalli^(V), Chintapalli (M), Nalgonda District. Occ. Bronze work

¶9

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 & 2

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Smt. Ragi Shirisha, W/o Ragi Sai Kumar, Aged about 19^years, Caste. BC, Occ. Household, R/o Plot No. 335, Near Pochamma Temple, V.T. Nagar tr/all,

¶13

N a^g a rj u n a s a^g a r Road' *" " n " ::fEI B6'll3L * r'o =^{ro.ro c o M p LAr N AN rs}

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the [,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to call for records relating to the C.C.No.1138 of 2019, dated^1311112019 on the^file of the XXIV Additional lvletropolitan lvlagistrate at Hayathnagar,^RangaReddy District and quash the same against the^petitioners herein.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

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 including arrest^{of the Petitioners hereinin C.C.} No.^'1 138/2019, dated 13/1 1/2019 on the file of the XXIV^{Additionallvletropolitan} lvlagistrate at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District,^{pending disposalof the above} criminal^petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and^{uponhearingthe arguments of Sri V. V.} Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the^{Petitionerand the Assistant PublicProsecutor} (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Ch. Shashi^{Bhusan' Advocatefor} the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

i \

¶20

THE HOI\I'BLE DT" ]USTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.3531 OF 2O2L

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 7973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No"1r38 of 2019 on the file of XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the Court below took cognizance for the offence under Section 363 r/w 149 IPC.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1/State and perused the record.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitionerslA.l and A.2 would contend that the allegations made against the petitioners/A,1 and A.2 do not constitute the offence under Section 363 r/w 749 IPC and continuation of the proceedings against them in the subject C.C is nothing but abuse of process of law and ultimately prayed to allow the Criminal Petition as prayed for.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the allegations made against the petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 do constitute the offence under Section 363 r/w 149 iPC and there is material to proceed against them and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶27

As seen from the material on record, there are allegations of kidnapping against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2. Therefore, it

¶28

¶29

cannot be said that continuation of^{proceedingsagainst the} petitioners/A,1 and A,2 in the subject C,C is abuse of^{process oF} law. The inherent^{jurisdiction of this Court under Section4BZ of} Cr.P.C., can be exercised to^{quash proceedingsin a proper case,} either to^prevent the abuse^{of the processof any Court or} otherwise to secure the^{ends of justice. In the instant case,} none of the circumstances^{mentionedabove do exist for} quashing the proceedings against the^{petitioners/A.1 and A'2 in} the subject Calendar^{Case by exercising inherentjurisdictionof} this Court under Section^{482 of Cr'P.C' However,the petitioners/} A1 and A2 are at liberty to^{file an application under Section 239} Cr.P,C. before^{the trial Court seeking discharge,if they choose to} do so. In the event^{of the petitioners/A.1and A'2 filing suchan} application, the Court^{below shall dispose of the same,} independently, on merits,^{in accordancewith law' It is made} clear that no opinion^{is expressed by this Court in relation to the} merits or demerits of^{the case of the petitioners/Aland A2 on} ha nd.

¶30

6 With the above^{observationsand direction,this Criminal} Petition is disposed^of.

¶31

Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pendingin this Criminal} Petition sha ll stand^closed.

¶32

o"",3Plit'AHA'ilXil //TRUE coPY/, tn/

¶33

SECTION OFFICER

¶34

To,'l.TheXX|VAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,CyberabadatHayathnagar'

¶35

Ranga ReddY District.

¶36

Z. f [e^{"S]ation-fiouse Officer,PoliceStation Vanasthalip-uram,Rachakonda District'} a. One CC to Sri^{V. V. NarasimhaRao, Advocatet-Olu-ql}

¶37

O.; CC to Sri^{Ch. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate} [OP!JC]^. s. iwo ccs to^{the public prosecutor, High courtfor the state ot leranganaar} Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶38

Two CD CoPies

¶39

One SPare^CoPY Ksk gbr )v

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0911112021

ORDER

CRLP.No.3531 of²⁰²¹

$ s14r
k
2 .,, I,lfiU'^''

¶45

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL^PETITION

¶46

Thota Venkateswarlu , Kondal and another v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Venkateswarlu , Kondal and another 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

Yellaiahgari Ravi Vs State of Telangana

Kalyan Chakravarthy Vs The State of Telangana and another

M. Sai Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Chimmala Swetha Vs Maria Fernandez

Kanakanala Narayana Vs The State of Telangana

T. Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Telangana and another