Allowed

Racha Narender Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Aug 2022CRLP/5059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC to allow a criminal petition filed by an accused. The court quashed an order that had closed evidence and denied the petitioner the opportunity to summon the Secretary of a Gram Panchayat to testify regarding the non-existence of a Dhaba Hotel at the time of the alleged offence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in Crl.M.P. No. 17 of 2022 in S.C. No. 90 of 2017 dated 12.04.2022 is set aside, and the petitioner is permitted to summon the Secretary, Gram Panchayat of Nanda Thanda, for giving

Racha Narender Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

[/ONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5059 oF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Racha Narender Kumal S/o. Nageswar Rao, Age 50 years, Occu. Business, R/o. H.No 4-2-49, c.R. Basti. Kothagudem.

¶8

... Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, represented by public prosecutor, High Court of Ielangana, at Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶12

Petition under seclion 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\4emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the impugned order passed in crl.M.p No 17 of 2022 in s.c.No 90 of 2017 dated i2-04-2022, on the fire of the special sessions Judge for trail of cases under S.cs and S.Ts (poA) Act - cum - Vll Additional District Judge, at Khammam, and incurcate an opportunity to the petitioner to take defence evidence by the secretary of the Grama panchyath Nanda Thanda, Mandal chunchupelly, Badradri Kothagudem District, regarding the existence of the Daba -Hotel.

¶13

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 dispense with in filing the certified copy of the order passed in crl.M.P.No17 of 2022 in s.c.No 90 of 2o1t dated 12-04-2022, onthe file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (pOA) Act - cum _ Vll Additional District Judge, at Khammam.

¶15

t.A. NO: 2 oF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 492 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 interim stay in S.c.No 90 of 2o1l on the file of the special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under s.cs and S.Ts (poA) Act- - cum- -V Additional District Judge, at Khammam, till the disposal of this criminal petition or else there is every possibility to the Trail court /Lower court to go for the arguments as the case is adjourned on 02-05-2022.

¶17

A. F 2022

¶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 implead the defacto complainant as Respondent No.2 to confront the evidence before the Lord Ship in the interest of justice.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.A.K. Reddy for sri Variyala chudamani Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5059 of 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cumVII Additional District Judge, Khammam in Crl.M.P.No.1.7 of 2022 in S.C.No.90 of 2017 dared 12.04.2022.

¶25

Heard the submission of Sri V.A.K.Reddy, who argued on behalf of Sri Chudamani Reddy, learned counsel who is on record for the petitoner and also heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing respondent No. 1- State

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.9O of 2Ol7 that is pending before the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII

¶27

¶28

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.5A59 of 2022

¶29

Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam. Learned counsel states that the petitioenr moved an application vide Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2022, seeking the Court to issue summons to the Secretary, Gram panchayat of Nanda Thanda, Chunchupally Mandal to give evidence, but the said application was dismised vide order dated 12.O4.2022 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

Learned counsel states that as per the version of the prosecution, the entire incident happened at the Dhaba Hotel. He states that, indeed, the sajd Dhaba Hotel $,as not in existence as on the date of the alleged incident and transactions, and, hence, to establish the said fact, there is no other go for the petitioner, except to adduce the evidence of Secretary of Gram panchayat of Nanda Thanda, and, therefore, he moved an application for summoning the said person, but the said application was dismissed.

¶31

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the request of the petitioner was dishonoured on two

¶32

¶33

Dr.CSL, J CrtPNo.5O59 of 2022

¶34

grounds. Firstly, there is a direction from this Court^to dispose of the case expeditiously, and, though^an opportunity was given to the^petitioner, he failed^to examine the witnesses on his behalf and, hence,^his evidence was closed. Secondlg, the reasons cited^are improper and the petitioner/ accused has iiled the petition only to drag on the proceedings.

¶35

The version of the petitioner/ accused is that the alleged Dhaba Hotel, where pa,rt of the scene of offence is located was not in existence as on the date of the alleged commission of^qffence. To establish that fact, the petitioner felt desirable to produce the evidence of the relevant person i.e. the Secretary of Gram Panchayat concerned. Only because there is a direction from this Court for disposal of the case expeditiously, or that the matter is a.n o1d matter, the proceedings cannot be closed without affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the parties to thc proceedings to adduce evidence on their beha,lf

¶36

( t

Dr.CSL, J CrLPNo.SOsg of 2022

¶41

7 . Further, the evidence produced would a-lso help the Court to come to a just conclusion regarding the merits of the case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order rendered disallowing the request of the petitioner is unsustainable.

¶42

B. Resultantly, the Criminal petition is allou,ed. The order rendered in Crl.M.p.No.17 of 2022 tn S.C.No.90 of 2017, dated 12.04.2022, is set aside and consequently, the petitioner is permitted to summon the Secretary, Gram panchayat of Nanda Thanda, Chunchupally mandal for giving evidence.

¶43

As a sequel, pending misceljaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶44

rssrsriD./ilafclt?FiF

¶45

//TRUE COPY/' ,="t B'*^oFFtcER

¶46

To, 1. The Soecial Sessions^{Judge for Trial of Cases under S Cs and S Ts (POA)} ;;i--.:;^{- vll AdditionatDistrictJudge' at Khammam} -

¶47

1. ?iL it"ti""^{n"r." otti""', KothagudemI Town Police Station'Khammam} District.

¶48

2 il;';'c.^{to the Assistantpublic prosecutor,Highcourtfor the state of} Telangana,^{at HYderabad [OUTI}

¶49

1. o;;'i; i;'s;^{t;rivala chudamaniReddv' Advocate [oPUC]}

¶50

Two CD^CoPies

¶51

One Spare^CoPY MMK

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/08/202:2

ORDER

CRLP.No.5059 ol 2022

2a
1
2I rT ?XZz
2

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION w?" 8.e,-^**

Racha Narender Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Racha Narender Kumar 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

Chakravarthi Jatoth Vs State of Telangana

Mogishetla Bandeppa Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Hafez Mohd Ghouse Rasheed, And 2 others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Dasyam Pavan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Pothedar Srinivasulu Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Pulipati Srihari Vs The State of Telangana and another