Dismissed

Yadagiri Tadem v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Telangana HC27 Apr 2022CRLP/9373/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of proceedings, the High Court dismissed the application as infructuous because the police had already completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet subsequent to the filing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed as infructuous; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Yadagiri Tadem Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{Dr. JUSTICE D'NAGARJUN}

¶5

CRIMIN AL PET^{ITION NO:} 373 F20 6

¶6

Between:

¶7

Yada oiri Tadem,^{Sio. Mallaiah. Aged about 48 years' Oc-c:Govt Employee'} R/o H it;)1 sr:^{-oor'E.Gi",iv"por,-Eoo"iilaramVillase'sansareddv'} tvledak District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of^{Telangana, Rep by ils PublicProsecutorHigh C-ourt of - .} ,, jriiJrtljL lt'ivi"iro"o. r#trb state of Telangana and^{the State of Andhra} P rad esh,

¶11

2 Smt. Ivlarivamma^{Kothelapuram,W/o Pentaiah' aged. about 46 years', Occ} i;ilr;;;:'Rv;^{<i.r.r".r 5id' 1vp,i-i eoa'mailaramvillase' sansareddv'} Ivledak District

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under^{Section482 of cr.P.C prayingthat in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to^quash the^{proceedings in CrimeNo' 42 of 2016 of P S'' lndrakaran'} Ir,4edak District.

¶14

CRL.P,MP .^{NO:10154oF 2016}

¶15

Petition under^{section 482 of cr.P.C prayingthat in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to stay all^{further proceedings in Crime No' 42 of 2016 of P S"} lndrakaran,^{Medak District, pending disposalof the above Criminal petition'}

¶16

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing'uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of^{criminar petition and upon hearingthe arguments of Sri r. Prasanna} Kumar,AdvocateforthePetitionerandtheAssistantPublicProsecutor(TG)on behalf of^{the Respondent No 1 and none appeared for the RespondentNo'2'}

¶17

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶18

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9373 of 2016

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

There is no representation on behalf of the^petitioner. Even on earlier occasion also the petitioner was not ready.

¶22

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted^that subsequent to the fiiing of the Criminal Petition, as no^stay orders were granted by this Court, the Poiice have completed investigation and filed charge sheet, which is numbered as S.C.No. 100 ot 2017.

¶23

In view of the above submission, since the very purpose of filing the Criminal Petition seeking quash of the FIR in Crime No. 42 ol 2016 ol Indrakaran Police Station, Medak District,^is defeated, the Criminal Pet.ition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶24

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶25

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

SD/-T.SRINIVAS

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/i

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1 The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sangareddy, Medak District

¶32

2 The Station House Officer, lndrakaran Police Station, lndrakaran, Medak District.

¶33

3 One CC to Sri T. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶34

4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies

¶35

6 One Spare Copy q br

¶36

HIGH COURT

¶37

DATED: 2710412022

¶38

d%*
.r3 ,tui zozz f))
e,
\*rsg:7

¶39

ORDER

¶40

CRL.P.No.9373^{of 2016}

¶41

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL^PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶42

(0
L
il

Yadagiri Tadem v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadagiri Tadem v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp 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

Pilli Suryanarayana, E.G.Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Patlolla Bala Krishna reddy Vs state of telangana

M/S Maina Investments Rep by Shaik Muneer Pasha Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Surukunta Sai Reddy alias S.Sai Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Begari , Avula Shyam Vs The State of Telangana

Muthe Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana