Dismissed

Veerapureddygari Bharath Krishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Sept 2022CRLP/38/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal charges. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the trial court had already disposed of the main case after parties settled and compromised before the Lok Adalat.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed as infructuous since the main case was already disposed of by the trial court following settlement.

Veerapureddygari Bharath Krishna Reddy Vs The State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

file of XVI

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA , ATHYDERABAD

¶3

¶4

TUESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 38 OF 2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . Veerapureddygari Bharath Krishna Reddy, S/o. V. Guruva Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occupation- Software Employee, Rl/o. H.No. 13-1-2818, Ashoka Apartments, Near Group Threaters, Tirupathi, Chittore.

¶11

Veerapureddygari Vasundhara, Wo. V. Guruva Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occupation- House wife, Rl/o. H.No. 13-1-2818, Ashoka Apartments, Near Group Threaters, Tirupathi, Chittore.

¶12

Veerapureddygari Guruva Reddy, S/o. Muni Reddy, Aged 63 years, Occupation- House hold, Rl/o. H.No. 13-1-2818, Ashoka Apartments, Near Group Threaters, Tirupathi, Chittore.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶16

Smt. Yekula Guru Tejaswini, Wo. Veerapureddygari Bharath Reddy, Aged 29 years, Occupation- House wife, Rl/o. Flat No. 306, Devi Mid Town, Above Dwaraka, Honda Showroom, Suncity, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the CC No. 665 of 2019 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2OF 2020

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be

¶21

¶22

pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No. 665 of 2019 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar.

¶23

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy. Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Smt. M. Saraswathi Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶24

The Court made the fc,llowing: ORDER

¶25

I \

¶26

t I

¶27

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION No.38 of 2O2O

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash C.C.No.665 of 2Ol9 on the lile of learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar, the cognizance of rvhich was taken for the offence under Sections 498-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶31

Learned counsel representing the petitioners iS present.

¶32

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that subsequent to filing of the criminal petition, the parties to the dispute have settled and compromised before the tok Adalath and accordingly the trial Court has disposed of the case on O4.O3.2O21 and to that extent copy of the proceedings sheet downloaded from e-courts is hled.

¶33

In view of the above submission, since the main case itself has been disposed of, the very purpose of hling the criminal petition to quash C.C.No.665 of 2Ol9 on the file ol learned XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar,

¶34

¶35

¶36

is defeated and thereby ttre criminal pctition has become

¶37

infructuous and liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed as

¶39

infructuous.

¶40

As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SD/.G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC FICER ;h

¶45

SEC FICER

¶46

'1 . The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

¶47

The Station House Officer, Narsing Police Station, Cyberabad District.

¶48

One CC to Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate IOPUC]

¶49

One CC to Smt. M. Saraswathi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶51

Two CD Copies gbr

HIGH COURT

<br>

DATED: 1310912.022

ORDER

t
*
a) s
'!tl, a_c-,
(a.
v
./
4,) a i.lt

¶57

CRL.P.No.38 of 2020

¶58

DISMISSING THE CRL.P AS INFRUCTUOUS

Veerapureddygari Bharath Krishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerapureddygari Bharath Krishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

Muthyalu Venkatesh , M v Guna Vs Jilakara Mahesh

A.Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Vemula Satyanarayana, Hyderabad., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Punna Vijay Kumar Vs Punna Mamatha

Smt. B.Vishwa Sree Vs Y.Sravanthi and Another

Guglavath Nandya Vs State of Telangana