Disposed

Gaddam Sampath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Jul 2022CRLP/6106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of proceedings. Granted exemption from personal appearance to petitioner nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the underlying criminal trial, allowing them to appear only through an advocate, while dismissing the quashment prayer.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from personal appearance granted to petitioners 2, 3, and 4; they may appear via advocate. Trial court may direct appearance if required.

Gaddam Sampath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY 'THE^{THIRTEENTHDAY_OFJULY} "--r'rtlO THOUSAND AND T\NENTY TWO

¶3

RESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICECHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶5

CRIM INAL^{PETITIONNO: 61060F2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gaddam^{Sampath Reddy'S/o Late G.Malla^Reddytfoedabout 32 Years'} HlLi!lsy:,,f1i;'il"-"t;:9,'df^{,1;xt-:l'u3:?'#f,xi'x-"'8T'3lll} Siiiiir,irii.^{S"ienieraoadHvderabad}

¶8

2 V3:{.:;f^I[tuH1",li'E*HlE,ff Siil9[,';n!",Hl;#,?',''$",'"ti? PeddaPallY^District,

¶9

3 Gaddam 35 Years,^{Mahipal Reddy, R/o. Bomrnareilipl'rfr"vil''gi"-oni'mara* S/o Late G'Mallaf,eddyOcc Labour' Mandal Aged Peddapaltvabout} District Occ:House^{wife Agedabout}

¶10

4 Gaddam Akhila, ;i"i;;;t,"il;' Bommareddvpallv^{Wo Gaddam Mahipal Villase' ReddyDh} ,;;;;;; Mandal,^P-eddaPallY District.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^{No' 1'2 4 & 5}

¶12

AND

¶13

lXSg'ffi"g,',iii3?3[5,,L'"'f't"'iiii'fiXlillf^{?1?'BPJ:ffi?'tE:dX':X'?f'n"r} District,^Telangana

¶14

Boddu Sridevi,^{D/o. Ctrandraiah,Aged 27 Years,R/o. EklaspurVillage'}

¶15

' il;;ih";i M;ndal, PeddaPallY District

¶16

..,RESPONDENT

¶17

Petition^{under Section 482 ol Cr'P 'C praying that in the circumstances} stated^{in the Memorandumof Groundsof CriminalPetition' the High Court may} be^{pteased to call for the records and quash the proceedingsagainst the} Petitioners/Accused^{Nos l} '2 '4^{and 5 in C C No 1 O43 ol 2O2Oon thef iie of} Honorable^{Judicial First Class Magistrate cumPrincipalJunior CivilJudgeat} Manthani,^{PeddaPallY District'}

¶18

l.A. NO.: I^{OF 2922}

¶19

PetitionunderSection482ofGr'P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition' the High Courtmay} be^pleased to^{stay of all furtherproceedings againstthe Petitioners/Accused} Nos¹ ,2,4^{and 5 in C.C No 1043 ol 2O2O on the file of HonorableJudicialFirst} Class Magistrate^{cum Principal Junior Civil Judge at Manthani'Peddapally} District.,^{pending drsposal of the main Criminal Petition'}

¶20

This Petition^{coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandumof} hearing the^argumentsof Grounds of^{Criminal Petition andupon} for the^{Petitioner andthe} Sri KONGALA^{MOHAN GOUD,Advocate} Public Prosecutor^{on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and not appearedeither in} person or bY Advocate

¶21

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶22

THE IION'BLE DR. CE CHIL SUMALATHA

¶23

Criminal Petition No.6106 of²⁰²²

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Seeking to quash the^{proceedings that are pending} against the^{petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1,2,4} and 5 in C.C.No. 1043 of^{2O2Opending on the file of the Court of} Judicial First Class lv{agistrate,^{Manthani, the present Criminal} Petition is filed.

¶26

Heard the submissions of Sri^{KongalaMohanGoud,} learned counsel for the^{petitionersas well as learnedAssistant} Public Prosecutor, who is representing^{respondentNo. 1.} 3. In the light of the limited^{reliel sought for, issuanceof} notice to respondent No.2^{is felt not necessary.}

¶27

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners submitsthat} petitioner No. 1/A- 1 is the husband^{and petitioner No.2/A-2is} the mother-in-law of respondent^{No.2/defactocomplainant,} petitioner No.3/A-4 is the brother of^{petitionerNo 1/A- 1 and} petitioner No.4/A-5 is the wife of^{petitioner No.3/A-4. Learned} counsel also states that^{only due to the disputes that arose with} petitioner No.,1/A-1, respondent No.2/defacto^complainant foisted a false case against him^{and his family members and} petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are facing much difficulty^{in attending the}

¶28

¶29

trial Court for each and every adjournment and therefore, exemption from their appearance may be granted.

¶30

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not raise any objection for grant of such reiief as far as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned.

¶31

By the material available on record, it is clear that most of the allegations are made against petitioner No. 1/A- 1 only. Therefore, this Court considers it desirable to grant exemption from appearance as far as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 i.e, A-2, A-4 and A-5 are concerned.

¶32

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with the lollowing directions: -

¶33

( 1) The Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manthani, shall not insist on the personal appearance of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein, who are arrayed as A-2, A-4 and A-5 in C.C.No. 1043 of 2O2O, that is pending on tJ'e frle of the said Court, during the course of proceedings, in case they are represented by an Advocate.

¶34

(21 However, the trial Court is at liberty to direct personal appearance, in case their appearance is required during the course of proceedings.

-I

,/c

Pencling miscellaneous^{applications, if any, shall stand}

¶39

closed.

¶40

SD/-G.SIREESHA

¶41

ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR 'J.l //TRUE COPY//

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

¶44

To, 1 The Principal^{Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani} 2 i''," Sirt.l i"use^{Officei Manthani Police Station' Peddapalli District} 3 o.L cc t"^{SRI KoNGALAMOHAN GoUD' Advocate [oPUC]} 4 i*o cc"i" t"^{puBLtC PROSECUTOR,Highcourt for the Stateof} Telangana at^Hyderabad lOUTl E Two CD CoPies 6 One Spare^CoPY SB /'4.\Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310712022

ffi
i:
B JljL ?tt?r.

ORDER

CRLP.No.6106 of²⁰²²

DISPOSING OF^{THE CRIMINALPETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

% r-r\7
tst nr")'

Gaddam Sampath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaddam Sampath 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

Philip Joseph , Yousuf Vs The State of Telangana and another

Meesa Chalapathi Rao and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Palle Giri Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Mushtaq Malik Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Batch Satish Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Kothuri Yellaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others