Disposed

K.Veereshwar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Nov 2021CRLP/4507/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to number the Special Application filed for determination of maintainability of a complaint under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. and dispose of it within one week, without deciding on the merits of the underlying complaint.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to number Special Application and pass order within one week.

K.Veereshwar Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4s07 OF 2021

¶5

Between:

¶6

K.Veereshwar, S/o Late K.V.K.B.Sastry Aged 33^years, Occu Nil, #204, Sai Krishna Enclave, Sai Gardens Andal Nagar, tr/oula-Ali, Hyderabad - 500040

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

State of Telangana & Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court buildings High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad - 500 066 Through Station House Officer P.S.Kushaiguda Rachakonda Malkajgiri District Hyderabad - 500 062

¶10

Guntreddy Appala Naidu, S/o Late Surya Narayana Occ Business, Caste Koppula Velama R:/o Flat No 205, Sharada Apartments, Besides Pace School, Dr. A.S. Rao Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 062.

¶11

...RES'.NDENTS

¶12

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 direct the inferior/trial Court of XIX A.M.M., Makajgiri immediately to allow/dispose of the Crl.M.P.(SR).No.1270 ol 2021 in PRC No. 19 of 2020 filed U/s 294 of the Cr.P.C., holding that it is absolutely maintainable in Law and on the interpretation made incidentally to that effect and further to direct the said inferior Court to read the documents filed along with the said [V1isc. Petition in a list as evidence

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

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 all further proceedings of PRC.No,19 of 2021 in Cr.No.326 of 2019 including committal proceedings conducted U/s 209 of the Cr.P.C on the file of XIX AMM It4alkajgiri at Vayupuri.

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.Veereshwar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.l and the Respondent No.2 not appeared either in person or by Advocate.

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

{ t

¶18

I I

¶19

The Hon'ble Sri Irrstice B. Viiavsen Rcddv

¶20

Crl.P. No.4-507 ol' 202],

¶21

Orde r:

¶22

Fleard Ir&'. C.Veereshwar, pany-in-percon, and Mr. Ganesh, leamed Assistant I ublic Prosecr,rtor appearing for respondent No.1. 2. This Gimir al Pedtion is filed to direct the )flX Additional Metropolitan Mag strate, Malkajgiri, to dispose of Gl.N4P.(Sr) No.1270 of 2021 in P.RC^rlo.19 of 2020, fied by the petitioner under Section 294 C"r.P.C

¶23

The petitior rer submits that the aforesaid pedtion is maintainable; the Coun below I .as not passed any orders on medts and the petitioner has got every rigl- - to insist the Coun to pass orders in the said petition. 4. According to the petitioner, the term 'inqr"riry' trs defined in ClaLse (g) of Sec,ion 2 of Cr.P.C, rould have to be understood that at anystage, the M.gistrate or C-oun can take up enquiry, when petitions are filed r,rnder v .rious provisions of Cr.P.C, including the one filed by the petitioner r-ur ler Section 294 G.P.C.

¶24

The limite I grievance of the pedtioner is that the C-or"rn below, without passing any orders in GLMP.(Sr) No.1270 of 2A21, is going ahead with furth:r criminal proceedings and it might catrse prejudice to the case of the p:titioner.

¶25

In these c rcumstances, as the limited grievance of the petitioner is that orders ar'not passed in Gl.MP.(Sr) No.1270 of 2021,the Coun below is directe I to nr"rmber the same, if it is found to be in compliance

¶26

¶27

with the provisions of G.P.C In case, the said petition is retumed by

¶28

the Court beioq proper reasons have to be assigned to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, if the said petition is numbered, the Coun below shall pass orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the reasons have to be recorded while disposing of the said petition. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations with regard to n-rerits of the petition filed by the petitioner aide Crl.}/.'P.(Sr) No.1270 ol 2021and^{the Coun below} shall pass orden in accordance with law.

¶29

This Giminal Petition is disposed^{of accordingly.}

¶30

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if any,stand}

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

¶33

To lH?t5fl's[lT!'J:"::"!il"ii:3,yffi^{i:8'iflF].Hi',rr'""lHi#"si354,,21;} Aoartments,^{Nr. Pace stnot Ot R S Rao Nagar'ECI}

¶34

Hish court^{ror rhestate of relansanaHvderabad} a f,7J53;i3'Bor[]," "'o'""'tor' (ouT)

¶35

Two CD^CoPies 5. One^{SPare CoPY} Kj.

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2311112O21

,ef"*-TrtN
D

ORDER

CRLP.No.4507^{of 2021}

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE 3RL.P.

¶43

ot P
I
o?,1
Dtt

K.Veereshwar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Veereshwar 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

Irfan Khan Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

C. Keerthana Vs The State of Telangana

Veeramalla Narsimha Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Vippala Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

Durgam Laxman Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Vunnam Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana