Disposed

V.v.Rajesh v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd. and Anr.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2022CRLP/9641/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court disposed of the proceedings and directed the police to conclude the investigation expeditiously without arresting the petitioner/accused No.3 pending the final report.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to conclude investigation expeditiously without arresting the petitioner; liberty to approach Court for quashment on filing final police report.

V.v.Rajesh Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd. and Anr. — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9641 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.V. Rajesh, S/o.V.Narasimha Rao, aged 43 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R.1o.1225O, South Kirkwood Road, # Apartment No.113, Stafford, Tex as - 77477, U.S.A.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶12

Gandham Sri Rama Murthy, aged 53 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o.Flat No.201 , Sri Satya Sai Prema Kutir, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶13

.,.RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

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 quash the proceedings in Cr. No.29 of 2O13 of Central Crime Station Detective Department, Hyderabad City.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(CRLPMP. NO: 8915 OF 2013)

¶16

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 including appearance of accused in Crime No.29 of 2013 of Central Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P. Veera Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

c l t e :itior No.9641 of 2013

¶20

¶21

t 1l

¶22

THE {ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.STIF{ENDER

¶23

c TIMINATPETILION No. 964 1 0F .?-at3

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This C inrinal Petition is filed by the petitiorre-/Accused No.3 under Sectior 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedun:, 19,'z3 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') see ling to quash the proceedings in Crinre No.29 of 2013 pending on t re file of Central Crime Station, Detectrve Department, Hyderabad. he petitioner herein is arrayed as Accrr-,:ed No.3 in the said crime. T te offences alleged against him are unrlerr Sr:ctions 420, 120(8), 405, +22, 464, 468, 474 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 156(3 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

Heard.^oerused the record.

¶27

This Co rrt by order dated 13.09.2013 grantel stay and the same was extr nded on 08.11.2013. Thereafter, the grroceeding sheet does not reflet that the stay was extended. The crirne is pending investigation since the year 2013 and unde-rvent several adjournments rt request of petitioner without hearirr,l In the said circumstances, the Central Crime Station Policer ;r^-r.r directed to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as c:s;sible without

¶28

Crl.Petition No.9541 of 2013

¶29

¶30

I I I

¶31

arresting the petitioner/Accused No.3. In the event of the

¶32

petitioner/Accused No.3 being aggrieved by the final report Rled by

¶33

the police, the petitioner/Accused No.3 is at liberty to move this Court

¶34

seeking quashment of the said proceedings if any.

¶35

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed off.

¶36

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

SD/-G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

<br>

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To.'-'t. Th" XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.at Hyderabad' , i. iii"'sA;;"n;;^{- orii;;;' F'';lasutta,Poi-icestation'-Hvderabad'} 5. o"i,-CCiij^{sii K. stiniu,.' Redov,Advocqte-[ofuc]} ;. il; cc i"^{sri p. Veera Reddv,Ailvocate-[oPUC]} 5. Two ccs^{to the puoric'prt"s1"Juit"i,i,gh -cbJrt f"'. tne state of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶42

Two CD^CoPies

¶43

One^SPareCoPY

gbr

HIGH COUR T

DATED: 011(912022

ORDER

CRLP.No.9& 1 of 2013

','
./f:.( teL41
<br>./'/ ^9
-i
4 A" t
{p
ie \\ ,::.
\o ,,
*-
rl
H{,\'\ ..

¶52

DISPOSING^()F THE CRL.P

¶53

c4*n's %g--rc\n*

V.v.Rajesh v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Rajesh v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lenkala Andalamma, Nalgonda., Vs Bhavanath Ramulu, Nalgonda and Anr, Rep. Pp.

Rajesh Kumar, and 5 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

K.Srinivas , Chinna and Another Vs the State of A.P.

N.Sekhar Rao, Warangal., Vs State of Ap., Rep. by Pp. and Anr.

Sri.Mohd.Khaled Shareef Vs The District Inspector

Sohrabh Agarwal and 6 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another