Allowed

M/S. Mahima Datla, Hyd and Anr., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC22 Jul 2022CRLP/649/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. The Court relied on an undertaking given by the parties before the Supreme Court not to initiate further civil or criminal proceedings against each other, pursuant to a judgment on October 6, 2022.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed; proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1 of 2015 are quashed.

M/S. Mahima Datla, Hyd and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr. — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 649 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Mahima Datla, D/o. Dr. Vijaya Kumar^{Datla, Business,Fi./o.Plot No.35O'} Road No. 23 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶9

Mr.Gandhi Venkata Rao, S/o. G.Hanr.rmantha^{Rama Rao, Business,Rl/o.Flat} No. 401 , Jhansi Residency, H.No.^6-3-34712218 '^{DwarakapuriColony,} Panjagutta' Hyderabad' ...pETrroNERS/AccusED 1 & 4

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, through its Public^{Prosecutor, HighCourt at} Hyderabad.

¶12

Di.Renuka Datla, Wo. Late Dr.Vijay^{Kumar Datla, Executive Directorof M/s.} Biological E.Limited, Fl/o. D.No.^{2-2-12131A, DD Colony,Adikmet,Hyderabad,} Telangana

¶13

...REspoNDENT/coMpLArNANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may be} pleased to call for the records relating to CC.No.^'l ol 2015^{on the file of the Vlll} Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum Special^{Judge for EconomicOffences at} Hyderabad.

¶15

cRLPMP. NO: 663 OF 2015

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may be} pleased to grant stay all further^proceedings including^{appearanceof the} petitioners in cc.No. 1 of 2o15 on the file of Vlll Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge cum} Special Judge for Economic Offences at^{Hyderabad,pending disposal of the} quash petition.

l.A- NO: 1 OF 2019

c"*L

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court maybe} pleased to extend the interim orders^{dated 14-12-2018 in crl.P.No. 649 of 20',15.}

¶21

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, uponperusingthe Memorandumof} Grounds of criminal^{Petition and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri S.NIRANJAN} REDDY, Advocate^{for the Petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor(TG) on behalf} of the Respondent^{No.1 and of sri K.L.B.Kumar, Advocatefor the Respondent} No.2.

¶22

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶26

CRL.P.N o.649 0F20ts

¶27

ORDER

¶28

lleard leamed counsel lor the petitioners and learned counsel for the second respondent. perused the record.

¶29

\ \

¶30

Learned counsel lor the petitioners has filed a memo stating the parties herein have preferred Civit Appeal Nos.2776, 2777 and 2778 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment dated 17.11.2017 passed by this court in Company Appeal No. 14 ol 2016. wherein the appeal filed by respondent i,r-os. I ro 3 therein againsr rhe orcler dated 30.05.2006 passed by the Company Law Board was allowed, and by judgment dated 06.04.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed ol the appeals. It is further stated in the memo that the parties undertook tre lore the Hon'bte Supreme Court that they will not initiate any further civil or criminal proceedings against each other.

¶31

It is submittccl by learncd counsel for the petitioners thar in view ol the undertaking given by the parties before the Hon'ble Apex, this matter may be closed.

¶32

¶33

In view of the undertaking recorded by the Hon,ble Apex Court at paragraph 47(6) ol the judgment thar to pur a quietus to the entire litigation berween them, the parties would not like to initiate any fufther civil or criminal proceedings against each other, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitionerslA-l & 4 in C.C.No. I of 2015, on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶34

5 Pending miscellaneous petitions, ilany, stand closed.

¶35

Sd/.8-SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 'a/ SECTION OFFICER

¶36

¶37

The Vlll Metropolitan Sessions Judge -+um- Speciar Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad.

¶38

9n" 99^{to Sri SNiranjanReddy,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶39

Two CCs to the Public prosecuior, High Coirt for itie State of Telangana, Hyderabad (OUT) 4. 9n" 99^{to Sri K.L.B.Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)} 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy *Ki. 22-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210712O22

--.7:=-\ ':<br>SE' ?0??

ORDER

CRLP.No.64{) of 2015

CRL.P. IS ALLOWED

0Kb

M/S. Mahima Datla, Hyd and Anr., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mahima Datla, Hyd and Anr., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

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

Fahad Syed Nooruddin Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Smt. D.Anjamma, Hyd and Another Vs Public Prosecutor, Hyd and Another

Javed Ahmed Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Smt Nanak Devi and Another Vs Smt M.v.Suryakala and Another

Mahendar Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. M.Madhumathi Vs the State of Ap.,Rep by Police Shamirpet, and Anothers