Dismissed

K.Indira Priyaddarshini and 7 Others v. Manne Anuradha and Another

Telangana HC6 Sept 2022CRLP/313/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings. The court accepted the prosecution's submission that the charge sheet had been laid, rendering the petition infructuous, and granted liberty to file a fresh application if the cause survives.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was dismissed; liberty granted to move a fresh application if the cause survives.

K.Indira Priyaddarshini and 7 Others Vs Manne… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAT)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 313 OF 2O2'l

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.lndira Priyaddarshini and 7 Others, Wo. K.Bala Koteswara Rao, Aged about 54 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. Block No.29, Flat No.0305, Rain Tree Park, Malaysain Township, K.P.H.B. Colony, Kukatpally - 500 072. A-2

¶9

B.Satyawathi, Wo. Late B.Vijaya Rami Rt;ddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. House wife, R!/o. Plot N o.57, Flat No.101 , Manasa Apartemnts, Pragathinagar. Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶10

¶11

Boddada Nagasubhashini, Wo. B.Prasad, Aged about 43 years. House wife, Rl/o. D.No. 5-121, Duddalekura Street. Munagapaka Village and Mandal, :

¶12

Visakhapatnam District. A-4

¶13

Dasari Aswini, Wo. Gorli Durga Rao, Agecl about 25 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o. Kothanagavaram Village, Vadrapalli Munagapaka lrilandal, District.

¶14

Visakhapatnam

¶15

¶16

Immadi Ashok Varshan, S/o. l.Vairateswara Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Rlio. Plot No.B8, House No.1 1-'15-1l0/2/A, Doctors Colony, A-6

¶17

Saroornagar. Hyderabad.

¶18

K.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 54^years, Occ. Self Employed, Fl/o. H.No.3-88/4, Sainathnagar, Setwin Colony. Nizampet Ranga Reddy District District, Hyderabad - 500 090. A-7

¶19

Ganisetty Venkata Rao, S/o. G.Pedda Ramana, Aged about 30^years, Occ. Farmer Fl/o. H.No.113, Vadrapalli Post, Nagavaram Village, Visakhapatnam District, A.P. - 531033. A-8

¶20

Nalla lvlurali Kr ;hna, S/o. N-Jagannadham, Aged aboLt^.10 y( ars, Occ. Self Employed, R/o H. No.10-3 -42113, Vijayanagar Colony, Asfnagar, Hyderabad - 500 057 A-9

¶21

PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶22

AND

¶23

1 Manne Anuradl a and Another, W/o. tt/.Vi.iaya Karunakar IRao, Lged about 57 years, Occ. Bu: iness, R/o. E-123, Dollar Hills. Puppalag-r,la, Nt,ar Manikonda. Hy lerabad. .... .DEFACTO

¶24

COMPLAINAN T

¶25

2 The State of Te angana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, l-lir,h Co rrt for the State of Telang lna at Hyderabad.

¶26

...RESPONDE NT/COMPLAINANT

¶27

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in tlre :ircumstances stated in the Memora rdum of Grounds of Crimin:rl Petition, tie High Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in Crime No. 4 o' 2-1.t21 of Punjagutta Police Station, Hyder Lbad.

¶28

l.A. NO: 2 OF 202'l

¶29

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the :ircumstances stated in the Memora rdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all fu ther proceedings including arrest of tno p€|titi(,ners in Crime No. 4 of 2021 ol Pu rjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, pertrtirg c isposal of the above Criminal petitic n.

¶30

This Petition , 3ming on for hearing,upon perusingr tlre Me morandum of Grounds of Criminal I 'etition and upon hearing the argument: ,rf Sri I S ANIRUDH REDDY ,Advocate f< " the Petitioner and the Additional Pu:lic Frosecutor on behalf of the Responr ent No.2 and none for the Respondent \c,..2.

¶31

The Court made the ollowing: ORDER

¶32

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶33

CRIMINAL PETITION No.313 OF 2O2l

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Seeking to quash the proceedings that are initiated against the petitioners through FIR No.4 of 2O21 of Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶36

No representation on petitioners' side on call. Hou,ever, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits, on written instructions, that the charge sheet is laid on completion of investigation, arld hence, the Criminal Petition has become infructuous.

¶37

Recording the said submission, this Crimina-l Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to

¶38

move a fresh application, in case the cause survives.

¶39

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

¶40

shall stand closed.

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SD/.P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISIRAR 'i,r-, ,,1,, sEcrloN cirrrbEh

¶43

\ \

¶44

To,

¶45

l.TheStationHouseofficer,PunjaguttaPolicetation,Hyderabad

¶46

One CC to^{SRl. T S ANIRUDHREDDYAdvocate [OPUCI}

¶47

One^{CC to SRl. Advocate [OPUC]}

¶48

Two CD^CoPies

¶49

One SPare^CoPY

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/09/2022

ORDER

,rz'6, 1
.).
/
l ill
2m
a,:/
)/

¶54

CRLP.No.313 of 202

¶55

DISMISSING TI,IE CRlMINAL PETITION AS INFRUCTUI )US

¶56

,
C>
L
IL
)(
D

K.Indira Priyaddarshini and 7 Others v. Manne Anuradha and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Indira Priyaddarshini and 7 Others v. Manne Anuradha and Another

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

Farooq Saadi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Mekala Srisailam and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Naramaneni Venu Vs The State of Telangana

Vemula Srinivas Vs State of Telangana

Annaldas Chaithanya Krushna and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana and Another

Uchidi Sharath Reddy and 14 others Vs The State of Telangana and another