This is a miscellaneous order dismissing a Criminal Revision Case for default due to the non-appearance of the petitioner. The court noted the parties had settled disputes and the petitioner had no previous representation.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed for default; miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAYOF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEMAKTHER
CRIMINAL REVISION CAS ENO : 49 0F 2008
Crl.Revision Case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. againstthe order dated 7-12-2007 in M.C. No. 7 of 2007 on the file of the Courtof the IX Metropolitan Magistrate , Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur.
Between:
G.SHIVA RAJ, S/o, Satyanarayana, Pvt. Labour R/o 3-3-70, Shanthinagar Bagh-EAmeer, Kukatpally, R.R.Dist., Hyderabad.
.. REVISION PETITIONER
AND
,.,RESPONDENTS
CRLRCMP. NO: 69 OF 2008)
Petition under Section 482 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings by suspending the operation in pursuant to impugned order and judgment passed in MC 7107 on the file of lX Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at IViyapur.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. M.PRAVEEN KUMAR ( Not present )
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI V. HARI HARAN
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: OROER
THE H )N'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AK'I'HER
Cr minal Re vision Case No.49of 200t|
ORDER
On 16.11.2021, there wasno representation for the revision petitioner. Ther:fore, the matter wasposted "for orders" today. Even then there is no representationfor the revision pe:itioner. It appears that th )revision petitionerhas no interest to pursue the matter.
2, The learn td counsel forrespondentNo.1 is presentand submitted that both theparties have settledthe disputesand sought divorcef 'om a competent Court and all the issues;between the parties were finally settled.
Miscellaner uspetitions, if any,pendingin this Criminal
Revision Case, sl all standclosed.
s D/'c H bvEEJiiYlrF:Eit?HhH //rRUE CoPY// -/
SECTION OFFICER \ To 1. The lX Metropolitn 1\4agistrate ,Cyberabad, Kukatpally at lr'4iyapur' (J+-lo""tJl t^ot ilo"+ ) 2. Two CCs to Publi; ProsLcutor,High Court at Hyderabad for the Stateof Telangana (our)
g. bne CC to SRl. I I.PRAVEEN KUMAR,Advocate IOPUC]
HIGH COURT
DATED:181111i'.021
ORDER
CRLRC.No.49 r,f 2008
G
,
rl
DISMISSINC THE CRL. t C.FOR DEFAULT.
Y \D \rz 0
2 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Shiva Raj
Smt. G. Durga Bhavani
The State of A.P.
Dr. Justice Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
