Dismissed

M/S. Kerla Ayurvedic Vidyashala Prop., Dr. M. L.Reddy v. the State of a.P., and Another

Telangana HC22 Oct 2021CRLP/4949/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 492 Cr. P.C. sought quashing/stay of proceedings in PRC No. 20 of 2013. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous due to the death of the accused petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is dismissed as infructuous; interim order is vacated; miscellaneous petitions are closed.

M/S. Kerla Ayurvedic Vidyashala Prop., Dr. M. L.Reddy Vs the State of a.P., and Another — Telangana HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTTCE G.RADHA RAN|

¶5

CRIMINAL P ETITION NO:4s49 0F 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

lVis,. Kerala_Ayurvedic Vidyashala, Besides Sapthaoiri Theater RTC X roads, Hyderabad Reo. Bv its proorietor or. variu r-ar<s[.Iilrr"y"n" Reddy. Dr. Mailu !9k^su'rin?layana^{heddy, 'ngeaauout} b!-i;;;:" b)t arr, Venkata Reddv. 11-3-292-3glcil, Miyakurita, ciilafata CuOi, dJ.rn'aernro-^{-' -'e'q ' \vvv,,}

¶8

...PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of A.P., Represented by public prosecutor, A.p. High Court, Hyderabad.

¶11

The State ofAndhra pradesh, Represented by Drugs lnspector, Hyderabad

¶12

,..RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under section 492 or cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to quash the proceedings in pRC.No.20 of 2013 on the fire of the rX Additionar chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶14

CRL.P.MP. N O: 4635 0F 2014

¶15

Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to stay of further proceedings including the presence of the accused in pRC.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the rX Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Kun Reddy Anji Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.'l .

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE^{G. RADHA RANI}

¶20

CITIN{INAL PETITION No.4949 OF²⁰¹⁴

¶21

ORDEB^(OR/.L)

¶22

Petitioner No.2 herein - accused No.2 is^{proplietor of petitior.rer} No.l accused No.1 viz., M/s. Kerala Ayurvedic^{Vaiclyashala,} Besides Sapthagiri Theater, R.T.C. crossroads, Hyclerabad.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that subject proceedings were abated due to death of petitioner No.2 herein^- accused No.2, as such, cause in this petition has become infructuous.

¶24

Recording the aforesaid submission of the learned Public Plosecutor, the criminal petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶25

As a secluel thereto, interim order/stay, if any, granted by this Court earlier in this criminal petition stand vacated. Further, rriscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition stand

¶26

closed.

¶27

SD/. I. NAGA^LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

\rr/

SECTION OFFICER

To, '1 . The lX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate^{at Hyderabld} z. The Druos lnspector,^{Chikkadpally Zone, O/oThe Director General'urugs} Control Administration,^Hyderabad.

¶32

?.?:33;i"'l5il$S'Sl"3ll,T"Tfltf^{ttli?l:l?#'.:l'"ofre,anganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶33

Two CD CoPies

¶34

One Spare^CoPY gbr \

:--\z

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2211012021

ORDER

1 tl E T4
(
IrJ
1 1 N0'/?q2l
.o
d+
(..9 ,1

¶40

CRLP.No.4949 of 2014

¶41

DISMlSSING THE CRL.P AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶42

c<br>

M/S. Kerla Ayurvedic Vidyashala Prop., Dr. M. L.Reddy v. the State of a.P., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kerla Ayurvedic Vidyashala Prop., Dr. M. L.Reddy v. the State of a.P., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Secunderabad. Vs Abdul Gafoor and 4 Others

Siddipet Muncipal Councel Rep by Commr,Siddipet and 2 Others Vs M/S Balaji Borewell Rep. by Its Proprietor, Siddipet

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Shaik Chand Basha and 4 Others

Syed Zulfikar, Hyd and 3 Othrs., Vs Smt. Nusrath Sultana, Hyd and Anr.

D.Rameswar Rao (A-1) Sec-Bad and 5 Otrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Mancherial Vs Bethi Madhava Reddy and 2 Others