An application seeking modification of an order dispensing the presence of petitioners in a criminal proceeding was dismissed. The High Court held it lacks powers to modify the order under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Application dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner No.2 to avail remedies under law.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P.No.1447 of 2022 PROCEEDING SHEET
| Sl. No |
DATE | ORDER | OFFICE NOTE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09.09.2025 | JSR,J I.A.No.1 of 2023 |
||
| Heard Mr.G.Mohan Sai Baba, learned | |||
| counsel representing Mr.Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioners, appearing through video conference, Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.L.Sridhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. |
|||
| Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.1447 of 2022, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.13 of 2022, dated 27.01.2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Luxettipet, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This Court, by order dated 19.03.2023, disposed of the said criminal petition by dispensing with the presence of petitioner Nos.1 and 3 only, although petitioner No.2 is also entitled to have his presence dispensed with along with the other petitioners. Unless the said order is modified, petitioner No.2 |
| will be put to great hardship. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there is no typographical error in the order passed by this Court under the guise of for |
|---|
| being mentioned. Petitioner No.2 is not entitled to seek modification of the said order under Section |
| 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 |
| (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’). Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of |
| the order dated 19.03.2023, it reveals that this |
| Court, while disposing of Crl.P.No.1447 of 2022, dispensed with the presence of petitioner Nos.1 and |
| 3, but did not grant such relief to petitioner No.2. |
| However, this Court does not find any grounds to |
| modify the order passed on 19.03.2023 in |
| Crl.P.No.1447 of 2022. Especially, this Court is not |
| having powers to modify the said order under the |
| provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. |
| However, liberty is granted to petitioner No.2 to |
| avail the remedies as available under law, if so he is aggrieved. |
| ________ JSR,J Vsl/bj |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for modification of a prior order dispensing presence is maintainable under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Ch. Venkat Raman
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
JSR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
