Dismissed

Rajagoni Narendar Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Sept 2022CRLP/4021/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This terrorist case was filed by accused No.3 to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.9 of 2020 by quoting the relevant petition. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet filed. The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed as infructuous. Liberty given to challenge the charge-sheet.

Rajagoni Narendar Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4021 OF 2020

¶7

Between

¶8

Rajagoni Narendar Goud, S/o Anjaiah Goud, aged about 36 years, occ. Business, r/o H.No. 2-84, Munipally village and Mandal, Medak District.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Munipally Police Station, Sangareddy Distrrct, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶12

Smt. Chintakunta Kalpana, w/o Late C.Prabhakar Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife r/o H.No. 1-11-917, Ramana Reddy Colony Rajendranagar, Cyberabad.

¶13

.,.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

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 call for the records relating the FIR No. 09 of 2020 on the file of the Munipally Police Station, Sangareddy District, and quash the proceedings thereon.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR No. 09 of 2020 on the file of the Munipally Police Station, Sangareddy District, pending disposal of the Criminal petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of

¶19

Ms. K JAYASREE ,Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON,BLE^{DT. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN} CRIMINAL PET^{ITIONNo.402L OF 2020}

¶23

QBDEB:

¶24

This Criminal Petition^{is filed underSection 482 of} the Code of Criminal^{Procedureby the petitioner-accused} No.3 to quash the^{proceedingsinitiated against him in} Crime No.9 of^{2O2O of MunipallyPolice Station,Sanga} Reddy District,^{registered for the offences underSections} 406,42O read with^{Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code'} 2. There is no representation^{on behalf of the petitioner-} accused No.3.

¶25

Learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor appearing for} respondent^{No. 1-State hassubmittedthatduring} pendency of this^{criminal petition,the Police concerned} have completed^{the investigationand filed charge-sheet} and the sarne was taken^{on file by the learned Judicial} First Class Magistrate,^{Sangareddy, and t1le sameis} numbered as^{C.C.No.322O of2O2l} ' Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{has filed aletter dated27 '06'2022} addressed by the^{Sub-Inspector of Police, MunipallyPolice} ./

¶26

¶27

Station, Sangareddy District, to the Public prosecutor of the High Court to substantiate the same.

¶28

4 . In vieq, of the above submission, since entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed, the very purpose of filing the criminal petition to quash Crime No.9 of 2O2O of Munipally Police Station, Sangareddy District, is defeated and thereby the Criminal Petition has become infructuous arrd liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the charge sheet, if he so desire.

¶30

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

SD/-N.CHANDRA^SEKHARRAO ASSISTANI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t'SECTfON OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

The Judicial First Class^{Magistrate SplMobile Court at SangaReddy'}

¶35

The Station House^{officer, Munipally Police station sangaReddyDistrict}

¶36

One CC to Ms. K JAYASREE,^Advocate. [OPUC]

¶37

Two CCs to the PUBLIC^{PROSECUTOR, High Court for the Stateof} Telangana at HYderabad.[OUT]

¶38

Two CD CoPies

¶39

One Spare^CoPY ea N- -.*

HIGH COURT

DATED:27 t0912022

ORDER

l Btt{.r
9
I
/4
(t)
s
Iot
Oi
s=
),,-,. $,
<br>.a/r *

¶44

CRLP.No.4021 ot 2020

¶45

DISMISSING THE CRLP AS INFRUTCUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

@^d'nt 7

Rajagoni Narendar Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajagoni Narendar Goud 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

N. Manohar Reddy Vs Syed Fhazil

The State of Telangana Vs Vangalpudi Vijaya Kumar

Rjeshwariraman Vs State of Telangana

Marella Venkata Rama Susheela Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Gone Anantha Reddy ,AnumulaAnantha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

R. Mallesh Yadav Vs The State of Telangana