Dismissed

Gurram Randeer Reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Jul 2022CRLRC/106/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in a criminal revision petition sought to quash an order of partial discharge. The Court held that as the trial had commenced, majority of witnesses were examined, and prima facie accusations existed, the petition was dismissed in the interest of justice to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed. Trial to conclude expeditiously.

Gurram Randeer Reddy Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAN GANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL R EVI SION CAS E NO: 10 6 0F 2019

¶6

Crl.Revision Case U_nder Sections 397 & 40i of Crl.p.C. , .t973 against the order dated 06-03-2018 in crr.M.p.No. tsag .iioro in cc No. 441 0f 2015 on the fite of the Court of the XXVI fvf"t.op"iiirn lVfrlistrate, Cyberabad at Maheswaram, R.R.District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gurram Randeer Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged4O years, Occ_Business, B,l?,"p^rr,rnrda.^{H/o snanr<arapiiari;iiir;t shamshabad rr/anar R R}

¶9

2 Mohd. Nazeeruddin. S/o. Aminuddin, Aged-37 years. Occ.Business, R/o. Pochammaguda, H/o. Shamshroio rrrrirji ri H'Drstrict

¶10

Birdar Suman Kumar, S/o. Chandrakanth, Aged-26 years, Occ_Business, R/o

¶11

1-5-355, New Maruthi ruagri, KothapEi,'iji[,]ririnug"r, Hyderabad

¶12

Avulakadr Mahesh. S/o- . Krrshnaiah . Aged_22 years. Occ_Busrness, R/o Maheswaram Vrllage and UrnOri, n.n DX;;i'

¶13

Gurram Anandh Reddy, S/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged 34 years, Occ-pilot, R/o. chertasuda, H/o ShamsGbio lirnl"i,'h]H oirtr.t"t

¶14

Nedunuri Chiranieevi, S/o. Chandraiah Goud, Aged_30 years, Occ_prrvate Service. R/o. Chihna co,,o"o, Viiilju]'bn"r"#Jnroro Mandat, R R Distrct

¶15

... Accused Nos. 1 to 6 / PETIT|ONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

State of Telangana, Reoresented by its public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

¶18

Sri Nimmagldem Sudheer Goud S/o Kumar Goud , aged 35 years Caste: Business , Maheshwaram V,il;s; ,;i/;;E;i rir;;;;r""ddy"

¶19

B3if"p*.

¶20

( R -2 impleaded as per Court order dated 6_2_201e ., *

¶21

l#."SlBioJ.rRl,^,

¶22

IANO:1O F 2019

¶23

Petition under Section 3gZ & 401 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fir; in:upporiof the petition, the High court may be pleased to condone the deray o-t zqq izvi iilirng tne Revision before this Hon'bre court as against the order in crr.M.p-N'o- rsss or 2016 in c.c No. 441 0f

¶24

3?Jil" the fite of XXV| Metropotitan Magislrate, Cyberabad at Maheswaram, R.R

¶25

IA NO :2O F 2019

¶26

Petitron under sectron ,'rs'1^{cpc prayingthat in the circumstances} stated rn the affidavrt fired in suooort of the petition inJ iign court.may be preased to stay att further proceedinos rn C C No aol-"r i,ir S^,"" in" ' ,,,. of XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, CyberabJd at Maheswaram, R.[;;;#;

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. c. KRTSHNA CHAITANYA counset for the Resoondent No.1 ,ftri p'uriirClRosEcUToR Counsel for the Respondent No. Z : None ;;;;.il'

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

II()'BLI.. StU.n s u( I,. ,.S \',t IIOSII Rl..t)t)\

¶31

C'RL.R.C.No. I06 C)F 20t9

¶32

olil)nlt:

¶33

'fhis criminal revision case is rired under Sections 397 and 40t ot' Cr.P.C. aggricvcd by rhe ordcr, dated 06.03.201g, passed in Crl.M.P.No.l389 of 2016 in C.C No.44 I of 2015, on rhc file of rhe XXVI Mctropolitan Magistratc, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram, wherein and whcreby, the pctition tilcd by [he pctitioners/accuscd undcr Secrion 239 Cr.I>.C. ro dischargc thcrn fbr [he oflences punishable under Sections 153(A), l7l (G), 188, 120(t]), 52(A),500 IpC and Scction t25 ol'the Rcprcscnration olpeoples Act, 195 l, was partly allowcd.

¶34

Heard lear.ed counsel ror thc petitioncrs and leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor fbr .esponde,t-State and perused the material on record.

¶35

The prosecution case, in briell is that the complainant alleged that the accused printcd a pamphlet with defamatory material and circurated the same in the public ro defame Smt.p.Sabitha Indhra Reddy with an intention to defeat her in elections. 'l'he Inspector of police registered a case in Crime No.t00 ol 2014 under. Sections t53(A), l7l (G), lg8,

¶36

120(8), 52(A), 500 IPC and Section 125 of the Represenration of

¶37

) \ s 11..1 ( rI Il, IL)6 l()l!l

¶38

Peoples Act, 195 I and investigate'd^{into thc case.Dr:r'ing thc courseof} investigation, the Inspector ol- Police' exarnined and^{rccorded lhe} statements of abor-rt^{(50)rvitncssesand atler cotrpletionof invcstigation} filed charge sheet lirr thc aloresaid^ofl-ences.

¶39

The petitioners filed Crt.Ml'}.No. ll89 of^{2016in C.C.No.44l of} 2015 to discharge them against the^{allegedoffences on the groundthat} the allegations of the F.l.fucomplaint^{and charge sheetdid not disclose} the commission of ingredients ol^{the allegcdol-lencesand there is no} sufficient material to lrame^{the chargcslor the alleged ol'flenccs.The} leamed XXVI Metropolitan^{Magistrate. Cyberabad afterhearingboth} parties partly allorved the petition by discharging^{the petitioners lor the} offences punishable under Sections^{153(A),188,52(A),500 ofIPC and} Section 125 of the Representation of^{PeoplesAct, 195 Iholdingthat} prima facie accusations are availablc^{for the offences underSections} 171 (G), 507 IPC and Section^{127(4) ofthe RepresentationofPeoples} Act, 195 I . Aggrieved by the same,^{the presentCriminal RevisionCase} is filed.

¶40

A perusal of the material^{on recordwould reveal thatabout (53)} witnesses were cited to^prove the^{alleged offences. As there was no stay} granted by this Court, the triat Court^{has taken-upthe case and}

¶41

:\S Ii ] .) Cr l.R( 106 lu I.,

¶42

procceded witll the trial and majority ol'thc rvitncsses werc cxatrincd. At this stage, it u,ould nor bc appropriate to entenain this petition.

¶43

Having regard to the above lacts and circumstances of the case, this Court is ol thc view that as the trial has already been commenced, majority of the witnesses wcre e xam ined and a perusal of the material on record also shows prima .facie accusations against the petitioners/acc used lbr the ol't-cnces as stated by the trial Court Judge in the impugned order datcd 06.03.201 8, in thc interest ol justice, it is opt to dismiss the petition pcrmitting the trial Courl Judge to concludc the trial as cxpeditiously as possible in C.C.No.44l ol20l5 and decide the matter

¶44

Accordingly, thc Criminal Revision Casc is dismissed. pending

¶45

miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶46

¶47

To,

¶48

SD/.K. SRINIVASA RAO JOlNrAEgtsrRAR //TRUE COPY// I^l-,.,-- SECTION OFFICER

¶49

The XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Maheswaram, Ranga Reddy District

¶50

The station House officer, Maheshwaram porice station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶51

Two ccs to Public Prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad for the state of rerangana (our)

¶52

One CC to SRt. G KRISHNA CHA|TANYA Advocate tOpUCl

¶53

Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy

\ X:-.,h--

HIGH COURT

DATED:05 t07t2022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.106 of 2019

t?t*
./, o. t) t.<br>c
t,( <br>I i'Jo 15 lir.ilj 2$I2
.F,f
\ in o,l'
:<br>

¶60

DISMISSING THE CRL. R.C.

¶61

@$6*

Gurram Randeer Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurram Randeer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ghouse, Hyderabad., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Bobbili Shankar Vs Smt. Bobbili Udayasree

Kilari Munuswamy Naidu Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P. and Anr.

P. Ravindranath Reddy Vs the Registrar of Companies for Telangana and A.P

Mr.Mousumi Ghoria Sinha and Another Vs Smt.Madhumita Mukherjee and Another

Mohd Mansoor Ali Nizami Vs Mohd Ibrahim