Dismissed

W.Ramesh Babu and 7 Ors. v. the State of Telangana Rep. by P.P. and Another

Telangana HC21 Oct 2021CRLP/4213/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashal of proceedings as infructuous. Investigation was completed with the case referred as action dropped due to lack of evidence, leaving nothing for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions held closed.

W.Ramesh Babu and 7 Ors. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DT, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:42'13 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

1, W. Ramesh Babu, S/o. W. Venkata Swamy, aged 33^years, Occ: Bank Employee,^R/o. H.No.87-1047-J, C- Camp, Kurnool-2 Town and District, A.P.

¶9

W. Venkata Swamy, S/o. Pedda Singaraiah, aged 62^years, Occ: Retired employee, R/o. H.No.87-1047, Ganesh Nagar, Kurnool Town and District, A.P.

¶10

Padmavathi, W/o. Venkata Swamy, aged 58^years, Occ:^Housewife, Fl/o. H.No.87-1047, Ganesh Nagar, Kurnool^Town and^{District, A.P.}

¶11

D. Jaya Sree, W/o. D. Ravi Prasad, aged 35^years, Occ: Housewife,^{Rl/o. Block-409,} Madhav Brundavan Apartment, Chanda Nagar, Lingampally,^{RangareddyDistrict.}

¶12

D. Ravi Prasad, S/o. D. Ramachandra, aged^{40 years, Occ: Govt. Employee,FVo.Block-} 409, Madhav Brundavan Apartment, Chanda^{Nagar, Lingampally, RangareddyDistrict.}

¶13

W. Narshimhulu, S/o. Pedda Singaraiah, aged 60^{years, Occ: Retd. Employee,Rl/o.} H.No.87-1047, Ganesh Nagar,^{KurnoolTown and District, A P.}

¶14

Muniswamy, S/o, Nagappa, aged 60^{years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.87-1047, Ganesh} Nagar, Kurnool Town and District, A.P.

¶15

Kalavathi, W/o. Jamulaiah, aged^{42 years, Occ: Housewife,Fi/o. H.No 87-1047,Ganesh} Nagar' Kurnool rown and District'^A P .....pETrroNERS/AccusED 1 AND I

¶16

AN D 1 The Stale of Telangana, rep. by its^{Public Prosecutor, High Court B!.!dings, Hyderabad.} 2 W. Sowmya Aliyasiyothi, Dio.-X.4.^{Ramchander,FVo.H.No.87-10_47,.GaneshNagar,} Kurnool, Now FVo. H.No.7-13-211^{16, New Housing Board Colony, Gadwal Town,} Jogulamba Gadweal District.

¶17

...RESPoNDENTS

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in lhe} Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,^{the High court maybe pleased to pleased to} quash the proceedings in crime No.¹ 69 of 2016 on the^{file of the Gadwal Town PS,} Mahabubnagar^(Jogulamba) District,^{Telangana,against the petitionersby callingthe} records.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLPMP.^N O:^{4062 OF2017)}

¶20

Petition under section 482 of^{cr.P.c prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the} Memorandum of Grounds of criminal^{Petition,the High court may be pleasedto stay all} further^proceedings in crime^{No. 169 of 2017 on the file of the GadwalTown PS,} Mahabubnagar^{(Jogulamba) District, Telangana, pending disposal of the Quashpetition,} and^pass such other order^{or orders as this Hon'blecourtmay deem fit and properin the} circumstance of the^case.

¶21

This Petition coming on^{for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of Groundsof} criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the argumentsof sri K. v. Raghuveer, Advocate for the} Petitioners and the Assistant^{Public Prosecutoron behalf of the Respondent No 1 and of} None appeared for the^{RespondentNo.2.}

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE: DT.^{]USTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶24

CRI INAL ETITIO N No.4 13of2^or7

¶25

¶26

GDEB:

¶27

This Criminal Petition,^{under Section 482 of the Code of} Criminal Procedure,^{L973, is filed by the petitioners/A'1to A'B} seeking to quash the^{proceedingsagainst them in Crime} No.l69/20L7 of Gadwal^{TownPolice Station, Mahabubnagar} (logulamba) District, registered for the^{oFfences under Sections} 4984, 509, 506, 313, 339,^{344, 3548, lz1B,r/w149 IPC and} Sec.12 of D.P.Act.

¶28

Heard. Perused the record.

¶29

In the course of submissions, it^is brought^{to notice of this} Court by the learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutorthat} investigation in the subject crime is completed^{and as there was} no evidence against the accused, the subject^{case has been} referred as "Action droPPed".

¶30

Under thes3 circumstances, nothing survives^for adjudication in this Criminal Petition.

¶31

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶32

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,^pending in this Criminal Petition shall stancl closed.

¶33

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

' -^)t')

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal, Nlahabubnagar District 2. The Station House Officer, Gadwal Town Police Station, Mahabubnagar (Jogulamba) District

¶38

One CC to Sri K. V. Raghuveer, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ior the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI 5. Two CD Copies

¶40

One Spare Copy Vm gbr d--

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2111012021

ORDER

llrt: > I/{rt-
o+ <br>e
:)
0 s N0\J?t?1
,-r
+il
,;.,'f,

¶45

CRLP.No.4213 <tf 2017

¶46

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶47

rVt /C\

¶48

(s^<br>

W.Ramesh Babu and 7 Ors. v. the State of Telangana Rep. by P.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

W.Ramesh Babu and 7 Ors. v. the State of Telangana Rep. by P.P. 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

G Shoba Vs The State of Telangana

Pasham Nalini Vs The State of Telangana

Bhukya Homji Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Jeedi Pramod kumar Vs Smt.Jeedi Sowjanya

Bheemagoni Mahesh Goud Vs Mamata

Md.Sahera Begum and 2 Others Vs Md. Basit Khan , Abjal and Another