Dismissed

R.Purushothama Chary, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Jun 2022CRLP/6515/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by five accused persons seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 119 of 2013. The petitioner requested quashing of offences under IPC Sections 494, 120-F, 420 and 34. No representation was filed on behalf of the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 6515 of 2013 dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stood closed.

R.Purushothama Chary, Vs The State of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6515 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

R.Purushothama Chary, Sio Nagaiah Chary, Occ: Pvt. Employee,^R:/o Peddamadoor Village, Devaruppala (Mandal), Warangal District.

¶9

R.Nagaiah, S/o Pullaiah, Occ: Business,^{R/o PeddamadoorVillage,} Devaruppala^(M), Warangal^District

¶10

R.Pulamma, W/o^{Nagaiah, Occ:Business'Fl/o Peddamadoor Village'} Devaruppala^{(M), Warangal District}

¶11

4 Annaourna,^{W/o RaghavuluclrgrY, pcc:Business'RJo Peddamadoor Village'} ' ij;;;lrpr;i, (M), warangal District '

¶12

..'PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{1, 3' 4 & 5}

¶13

AND

¶14

court^of

¶15

1. The^{State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep.bv its Public} ""fi.$:lJlfli A.P.,^{at HYderaoao'}

¶16

,fi 'i(;:i:i61"Jft #i,['-"u,T$:Sn$gs;i":"ff,;,'$liltd:iil'{'.r" District

¶17

rg that^{in the circumstances} Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr'P'Cprayrr} stated^{in the Memorandut o'O'ounatof Criminal Petition' the HighCourt may be} pleased^{to quash the Crime No'119of 2013on the file of the Keesara PS''} Cyberabad^{District'Ot f+-Oi-ZOfefor the allegedoffences under sections 494'} or IPC '^{& 156 (3) or cr'P'c'} ilo"i, ^r,,34

¶18

l.A. NO:1 OF 2013(CRLPMP. NO: 5920 O F 2013)

¶19

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 stay all further proceedings in Crime No.119 of 2013 on the file of the Keesara PS., Cyberabad District, dt.14-05-2013 for the alleged offen(;es under sections, 494, 120 8,42O,34 of lPC., and 186 (3) of Cr.p.C., including arrest of the petitioners ie., accused 1,3, 4 and 5, pending disposal of the above Crl.p.,

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA ,Advocate prosecutor on beharr ", ,i:j [J;::;",.ff;r]lj ,',."'."J,;::,]",:::l: Respondent No. 2

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6515 OF 2Ol3

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. i 19 of 2Ol3 of Keesara Police Station, Cyberabad District registered for^{the oflences} punishable under Sections^{494, l2O-F, 420 read with} Section 34^IPC

¶26

No representation^{for the petitioners'}

¶27

¶28

Learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutor submittedthat} charge^{sheet was frled and the case was also ended in} acquittal.

¶29

Duly^{recordingthe said submission' this Criminal} Petition^{is dismissed'Miscellaneous petitions pending'if} any,^{shau stand crosed} sr'iSABYiU:#e,EFE'^X

¶30

,rRuE^coPY" s'tflON^oFFrcER

¶31

H*tli{,r"

¶32

!qg;ig5n*:**tffi BE c

t \

HIGH^COURT

DATED:07^10612022

ORDER

1 1rE STAI e'
t
)k
13 SEP 2$TI

¶38

CRLP.No.O515 of 2013

¶39

DISMISSING TTIE CRI,. PE,I-ITION.

¶40

( n

¶41

lrl^E

R.Purushothama Chary, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Purushothama Chary, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

B.Anuna Kumari Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Air Liquide Engineering India PVT.LTD.(A1) Newdelhi and 3 Ors. Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

K. Sathaiah Vs Korpuri Saritha

K.Srinivasa Raju Vs state of telangana

G.v.Laxmikantha Rao, Karimnagar (Manddt) and 2 Othrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Sho, 1 Town Ps., and Anr.

K. Krishna Veni Vs State of Telangana