Dismissed

Koppula Vijay Bhaskar Reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Sept 2022CRLP/911/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed Criminal Petition 911 of 2020 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order allowing prosecution to receive additional documents as infructuous since the trial court had already disposed of the main case convicting the accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stayed closed.

Koppula Vijay Bhaskar Reddy Vs State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s9 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE O.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9'11 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Koppula Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Ramreddy, Age. 35 years, Occ. Lorry Owner, Rt/o. Madpuram, Mudigonda Mandal, Now at Reddy Colony, Miryalagudem, Nalgonda District, Telangana

¶9

Morthala Saidireddy, S/o. Ramireddy, Age. 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Madapuram Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana

¶10

Morthala Narsireddy, S/o. Ramireddy, Age. 29 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Madapuram Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana

¶11

Gouni Janakirami Reddy @ Janakiramulu, S/o. Ramchander, Age. 29 years, Occ. Lorry owner cum-driver No. AP 16 TY 4784 No. Rachala Village, Addakula Mandal, Mahboobnagar District, Telangana

¶12

Morthala Ramireddy, S/o. Narsireddy, Age. 62 years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o. Madapuram Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana

¶13

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 to 5

¶14

AND

¶15

State of Telangana, Rep. by the Station House Officer, P.S. Mudigonda Through the Public Prosecutor, Khammam High Court Hyderabad

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the order of the Honble Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2019 in S.C.No.68 of 2016, dated 21 .O1 .2020.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶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 suspend the operation of the order of the Hon'ble principal

¶20

Sessions Judge, Khammam in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2019 in S.C. No. 68 of 2016, dated 21.01.2020, pending disposal of this criminal petition.

¶21

LA. NO: 2OF 2020

¶22

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 implead the Proposed Respondent as Respondent No 2 in Criminal Petition No 91 1 of 2020.

¶23

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent.

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶26

CRIMINAL PETI?ION NO.9ll of 2O2o

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal procedure by the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 5 challenging the orders dated 21.01.2020 in CrI.M.p.No. 1 of 2019 in S.C.No.6B of 2016 passed by the learned principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, wherein the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 231 and 173 (S) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to receive additional documents was allowed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the criminal petition has become infructuous.

¶30

Learned Assistant public prosecutor has submitted that subsequent to the firing of the criminal petition, the trial court has disposed of the main case on O4.\O.2O2L, wherein the accused were found guilty of the charges leveled against them and accordingly they were convicted and to that extent copy of the proceeding sheet downloaded from e_courts is filed.

¶31

In view of the above submissions, since the main case has already been disposed of the very purpose of filing the criminal

¶32

¶33

petition to quash orders dated 2l.Ol.2O2O in Crl.M.P.No. 1 of 2Ol9 in S.C.No.68 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam is defeated and thereby the criminal petition has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Accordingly, the Criminai Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶35

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

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

SD/-K.ONESIM DEPUTY REGISTRAR -\i

¶38

-. , r\t,\1'' ,^,. i- SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

1 The Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam. 2 One CC to Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate [OPUC] 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

4 Two CD Copies

¶42

5 One Spare Copy s '1.

¶43

HIGH COURT

¶44

DATED: 2310912022

¶45

1 t\L S1AII
x
t $ N\l\ 1$11
co
..4
jry
- tfs Pi.f
",r'

¶46

ORDER

¶47

CRLP.No.911 of 2020

¶48

DISMISSING THE CRL.P AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶49

h^{/</sup> ^o}

Koppula Vijay Bhaskar Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koppula Vijay Bhaskar Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Singaraju SomaSekhar, Vs The State of Telangana

Viabhav Tripathi Vs The State of Telangana and another

Pottabathula Shekhar , Chiranjeeni Vs The State of Telangana

Kavvampally Durgaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Pannala Govardhan Reddy Vs Smt. B.Laxmi

Pannala Govardhan Reddy Vs Smt. B.Laxmi