Disposed

Dasyam Pavan Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Aug 2022CRLP/7083/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court directed the trial court not to insist on personal appearance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 if represented by an advocate, exempting them from appearing on every adjournment. It clarified that petitioner No. 1 remains subject to personal appearance. The witness (defacto complainant) was not summoned.

What did the court decide?

Dispensed with personal appearance of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 for various dates if represented by an advocate; exemption does not apply to Accused No. 1.

Dasyam Pavan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IVIONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7083 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dasyam Pavan Kumar, S/o. Radha Kishan, Aged 43 years, Occ. Priest, R/o.H.No.25-36/'1lB, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Near Venugopalswamy Temple, Ramachandrapurm (V) and (M), Sangareddy District, Telangana.

¶8

Dasyam Radha Kishan, S/o.Pattabhi Ramaiah, Aged 66 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No.7-101A, Plot No.43, Durga Nagar, Tulja Bhavani Road, lnjpur (V), Hayathnagar Mandal, KV Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶9

Smt.Dasyam Radhadevi, W/o.Radha Kishan, Aged 62 years, Occ. Housewife, R:/o. H.No.7-10lA, Plot No.43, Durga Nagar, Tulja Bhavani Road, lnjpur (V), Hayathnagar Mandal, KV Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶10

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court, Hyderabad, through SHO, Ameenpur, Sangareddy.

¶13

...Respondent No.1/Complainant

¶14

Smt. Dasyam Rajyalaxmi, W/o. Pawan Kumar, Aged 38 years, Occ. Teacher, R/o. H. No .5-73 171, lndiramma Colony, Patelguda Village of Sangareddy District.

¶15

...Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to^quash the^proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC No. 295 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition unde r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stat( d in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Co irt may be pleased to dispense with filing of Certified Copies of Complaint F.l.R., Charge Sheet in CC No. 295 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior )ivil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

¶19

LA. NO: 2OF 2022

¶20

Petition und:r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances state C in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court mey be pleased to stay all further proceedings against petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 in CC No.295 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge -:um- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Crir ninal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nageshwar Rao F ujari, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Assistant Public Prosecutor < n behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearinE in person or by Advocate.

¶22

The Court made tl e following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7O83 Of 2c,22

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Seeking to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No.295 of 2022 on trre file of the Court of principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, the present Criminai petition is filed.

¶28

Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos. I to 3, and as weli as the learned Assistant Public prosecutor, who is representing respondent No. 1 -^State. Having regard to the limited request made by learned counsel for the petitioners, issuance of notice to respondent No.2/defacto complainant is feit not necessary.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever, more particularly, the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 324 IPC and, indeed, the 2'a respondent to bring the petitioners to her terms, has foisted a false case against them. Learned Counsel, however, states that no further orders in this Criminal Petition are required except to dispense with the personal appeaqance of

¶30

I t

¶31

-l t),⁽ st ..r ( Lt ,, 1\1ri 11)ll

¶32

the petitioners^{'accused Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Courton} each and everi date of adjournment'^{LearnedAssistant Public} Prosecutor did not^{raise any seriousobjection lbr grant of such} relief.

¶33

The Crir :ina-l Petition^{is,therefore,rlisPosr:dol with the} follorving direc tions:

¶34

(1) Th: Court ol Judiciai Magistrate of First^Class, Asifabad, is^.lirected not to insist the personal appearance^of petitioners N,r.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.295 of 2022 that is rending before the said Court during the course of proceedings, n case they are represented bv an zrdvocate.

¶35

(2\ H,rwever, the,petitioners Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall n rake their appearance before the tria_l Court in case a specific direc:ion to that effect is issued.

¶36

(3) It is made clear that such an exemption is not granted as far as pet tioner No. l/Accused No.l is concerned.

¶37

5 As a s:quel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶38

_stald closed

¶39

¶40

SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ?/ //TRUE COPY// ' )), SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

1 The Princip rt Junior Civit Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sanl areddy.

¶43

2 House Officer, Ameenpur potice Station, Sangareddy n:ri"i:,",

¶44

3' Two ccs to the Assistant public prosecutor, ----qavr '^I High 'r! court for the State of , I:,11g:1",^{at Hyderabad} touil I i,Xi BS t";;* NAGESHWAR'nno pu.raRr, Advor;ate topucj MMK

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/08/2022

ORDER

1i t,ti 2m

CRLP.No.7083 of 2)22

ai.

OISPOSING OF TIIE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶52

C-r
(1)
,{V<br>A \ohr"
<br>

Dasyam Pavan Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasyam Pavan 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

Racha Narender Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Pothedar Srinivasulu Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Pulipati Srihari Vs The State of Telangana and another