The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by Pradeep Manik for lack of prosecution, noting repeated absence of representation from the petitioner across multiple hearings.
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 FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N/ONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRIMI NAL PETITION NO: 15903 OF2013
Between:
Pradeep Manik, S/o. Prabhakar Manik, Occ.PrivateService,Fi"/o.5002,Misha
Mansion, Krishnapuri Colony, WestMarredpally, Secunderabad.
...Petitioner/Accused
AND
Respondents/Complainant
Petition under Section 482 ofCr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased toquash the complaintin C.C.No. 228 of 2013on the file of the X Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Secunderabad.
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(CRLPMP.NO :14254 OF 2013)
Petition under Section 482 ofCr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay
i/
I
be pfeased to grant interim stay of a[ further proceedings in cc No. 22g of 2013 on the file of the X Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate, Secunderabad pending disposal of Crimlnal petition.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri v. Jagapathi, Advocate for the petitioner and the pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and of M/s shireen Sethna Baria, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
HONOURABLE SRI JTJSTICE A.SANI'HOSH REDDY CRI M INAI, PETIT ION No.l 5903 of 20t3 ORDER:
As per thc docket proceedings on 10.03.2022, as there was no representation on behalf. ol. the peritioner, the matter was directed to be lisred undcr rhe captron 'l:or dismissal, on 08.04.2022. Though rhe marrer rvas lisred under rhe dismissal caption, there was no represcntation on bchall.olthe petitioner on 08.04.2022 and 26.04.2022 and today also rherc is no representation on behalf, of the pctitioncr. It appr,ars that the petitioner is not interested to prosccute thc rnatter. 2. In view of the same, the Crinrinal perition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Miscellaneous perilions, if, any., pcnding shall
stand closed.
, / ,rRuE copy//Ass,sriifriJ4l$ffiRE SECTION OFFICER
To,
plp
HIGH COURT
DATED:13/06/2022
ORDER
CRLP.No.15903 of2013
e S'iA r€:
\ o
1 nu J uL 20?2 7-a
L)
\ *
k !
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION FOR NONPROSECUTION
fil,
^ , -)
*Y9
s
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of representation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Manik
The State of Andhra Pradesh
ORIX Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd.
A.SANTHOSH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
