Dismissed

Kummari Mahesh v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC22 Sept 2022CRLP/732/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of proceedings for offence under SC/ST (POA) Act, holding the petition infructuous as the trial court had already disposed of the case and acquitted the petitioner accused.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as infructuous.

Kummari Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana and another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 732 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kummari Mahesh, S/o Anjanayulu,

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶12

Bolli Raju, Sio Ramaiah, Rvo Pudur Villase and Mandal, u,1i.rfiE3$O*DENTS

¶13

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceeding in CC No.213 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Vllth Sessions Judge cum Special Court for S.C. and S.T. Act, at LB.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶15

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 for the proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in CC No.2'13 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble Vll Sessions Judge cum Special Court for S.C. and S.T. Act. At LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorahdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.D.PHANI KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioners not being present and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None Appeared for the Rpspondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

(

¶19

THE ION'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJIIIi

¶20

Cr IMINAL PETITION No.732 of 2O2r)

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Crir rinal Petition is filed under Sectior,. 482 of the Code of Crimir al Procedure by the petitioner-accusc:d to quash C.C.No.213 of 2019 on the file of learned VI Sessrcns J,rdge - cum - Speciai Court for trial of cases filed under SC//ST (POA) Act, Ranga Rer dy District at L.B.Nagar, tl;.e cognizarLcr: of which was taken for he offence under Section 504 ol' the Incliarr Penal Code and Secl orr 3 (1) (r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶23

There ir no representation on behalf ol tht: petitioner' - accused.

¶24

Learnec Assistant Public Prosecutor has su lmitted that subsequent t< fi1ing of the criminal petition, as ther: itre no stay orders grante I by this Court, the trial Court has dir;posed of the main case o't 16.02.2021, wherein petitioner-a< cused rvas found not € liity of the charges leveled against him and accordingly h : rvas acquitted and to that extent thr: pro<:eedings sheet downlo rded from e-courts is filed.

¶25

ln vier ol the above submission, since rlain case has alreadv been disposed of, the very purpose oi filirr1f ihe criminal

¶26

..,-

¶27

¶28

petition to quash C.C.No.213 of 2Ol9 (ought to have been mentioned as S.C.No.2 13 of 2019) on the file of learned VI Sessions Judge - cum - Special Court for trial of cases filed under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar is defeated and thereby the criminal petition has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶30

As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

Sd/-N.RAJA GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' qb

¶32

SECTION OFFICER

¶33

¶34

'1 . The Hon'ble Vl Sessions Judge -cum- SC & STs Special Court at L'B'Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶35

The station House Officer,^{chengomulPolice station,VikarabadDistrict.} 3. Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High Court for the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad (OUT)

¶36

O'ne CC to Sri T.D.Phani^{Kumar, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶37

Two CD Copies

¶38

One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DArED:2210912022

ORDER

CRLP.No.732 of 20^r0

' ;--,-.-><br>I

DISMISSING THE CRL.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS,

¶47

B\ \ uJ
\

Kummari Mahesh v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kummari Mahesh v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Kotla Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

R. Praveen Kumar , Praveen Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Vasarla Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Singaraju SomaSekhar, Vs The State of Telangana

Viabhav Tripathi Vs The State of Telangana and another

Pottabathula Shekhar , Chiranjeeni Vs The State of Telangana