Dismissed

G.Maheswar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Jun 2022CRLP/334/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed Criminal Petition (Crl.P. No. 334/2014) for non-prosecution. The Court held petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the pending matrimonial complaint, leading to dismissal of the petition for quashing of proceedings and closing of related miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed for non-prosecution; miscellaneous petitions pending stand closed.

G.Maheswar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

I i i I l

I I I

I i I l I ; I ; I I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶6

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 334 OF 2014

¶10

Between:

¶11

1- G.lt4aheswar, S/o. G.Sriram Naik, Occ:Student, Osmania Universitv Hostel. Hyderabad, Fl/o.^'1-61, Ir/addimalla Village, Banjara Thanda, yellardOdypeti, Karimnagar District.

¶12

Smt G.Laxmi, W/o. G.Sriram Naik, Occ:Agriculture Labour,

¶13

G.Sriram Naik, S/o. Late Swamy Naik Occ:Agriculture Labour,

¶14

Petitioners 2 and 3 are F/_o. 1-61, Maddimalla Village, Banjara Thanda, Yellareddypeta, Karimnagar District.

¶15

Smt N.Uma Baik, Wo. N.Shanker, Occ:Housewife, Ryo. Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶16

(Dismissed ai withdrawn in so far as petitioner No.1 vide Court Order dated 03.02.2014)

¶17

...PETITIONERS 1 to 4/ACCUSED No.1 to 4

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶21

Smt E.Sandhya Rani, W/o. G.Maheswar, D/o. E.Upender Rao, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o. B-10-49, NTpC, Ramgundam Karimnagar District.

¶22

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶23

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash all the proceedings in CC.No.962 of 2O1O of WpS, CCS, Hyderabad for an offence u/sec.498-A, 420 lp? and Sec.4 and 6 of D.p. Act on the file of the Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

i I i I

i I I

i I

CR LPMP. NO: 188 OF 2014

¶28

Petition uncLer section 482 of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court maybe} pleased to grant interim stay of all the^{proceedings in cc.No.962 of 2010 of wPS,} CCS, Hyderabad fcran^{offence u/sec.498-A,420IPC and Sec.4and 6 of D P' Act} on the file of the X ll Addl.^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad'}

¶29

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, uponperusingthe N/emorandum of} Grounds of crimiral^{Petition and upon hearingthe arguments of sri K. Sai Babu,} Advocate for the Petitioner^{and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the} Respondent No.1 and of sri^{M.V.L. Narsaiah, Advocate for the RespondentNo.2.}

¶30

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶31

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶32

CRIMINAL PETITION No.334 oF 2014

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that inspite of addressing a letter dated 10.03.2022 to the petitioners, they are not responding and it appears the case is still pending beiore the trial Court. He also fiied proof of letter.

¶35

No representation for respondent No.1.

¶36

In view of the representation of learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners are not interested to prosecute the matter.

¶37

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶38

shal1 stand closed.

¶39

SD/- T. J.AYASREE ASISSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER 1 To, . The XlllAdditional Chief Me_tropolitan lvlagistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Ceritral Crime"Station, Hvrierabad. 3. One CC to Sri K. Sai Babu, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two ccs to the Pubric Prosecutor, Higih court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5. One CC to Sri M. V. L. Narsaiah, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy sbr

I I I I i I I I :

i I i I

l I I I

HIGH COUFIT

DATED: 0910612022

'i E STAr{, O*,\
t
7
c:
o-) I B l unll ?[22 c')
I (J
)-.
n*,/l'
t
\ o ?A1 c,'
)

¶47

ORDER

¶48

CRLP.No.334 of 2014

¶49

DISMISSII\IG THE CRIMINAL^PETITION FOR NON PROSECUTION

¶50

G.Maheswar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Maheswar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

K. Krishna Veni Vs State of Telangana

Smt R.Shivani and 3 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. R.Shivani, Hyd and 2 Othrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

Mr. Aslam Hamid Khan and 6 Others Vs State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Mohd. Yunus Saleem Vs Syeda Zeeshan Azhar

M/S Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and 3 Others Vs State of Ap.