Allowed

Thakur Raghavender Singh , Raghav v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC5 Jul 2022CRLRC/456/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court directed the Additional Judicial Magistrate to allow the accused to examine documents available on record in the open court, despite the trial court's refusal to issue certified copies, to enable the defence to be prepared.

What did the court decide?

The trial court directed to permit the petitioner to go through the contents of the documents referred to in his Section 207 petition in open court.

Thakur Raghavender Singh , Raghav Vs The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT , THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SUMALATHA

¶5

'HILLAKUR CRIMIN AL REVISI ON CASE NO: 456 oF 2022

¶6

criminar Revision case under sections 397 & 401 crr.p.c. against the order in crr'Mp No.,60/202'1 in cc No.213116 0n the fire of the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, special Mobile court -cum- Il Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Sangareddy, dated 0910312022.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thakur Raqhavender Sinoh @.Ragtav, S/o. Jaidev Singh, aged 35 years, Occ Advocare, R/o. otd Mtc ii3, B-HEL,"A;;a;;"i;;;;r. Medak District

¶9

...PET!T|oNER

¶10

AND

¶11

,, 8".J3,""r:Li:,Sg%:^{Represented by its pubtic prosecutor, Hish courr of} 2. Ihe Station Hbuse Officer,. p.S. Ramchandrapuram, Medak. 3.^panuqanti Rivasree. oro. iangaia;,'oit )s ffi?! R/o. LtG 754, occ.Doctor R'c Puram' Medak District- ' ;;;;ENrs/ coMpLArNANrs

¶12

coMpLArNANrs

¶13

IA NO: oF 2022

¶14

Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds of criminar Revision case, the High court may be preased to grant interim stay of a, further proceedings in c.c.No. 21312016, on the fire of the Additionar Judiciar First crass Magistrate, Special Mobile Court cum ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

¶15

This Criminal Revision Case coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of sri D.Naresh Kumar, advocate for the petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

:IHE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE^{CHILLAKURSUMALATHA}

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASE No.456of 2022}

¶19

ORDIIR:

¶20

Heard Sri Raghava, Advocate,^{who arguedon behalf of} Sri D. Naresh Kumar,^{learned counselfor the petitioner/Accused'} Also heard the submission of the^{learned Assistant Public} Prosecutor, who represented^{respondentNos. I and 2.}

¶21

Challenge in this Criminal^{RevisionCaseis the order that is} rendt:red by the Court of Additional^{JudicialMagistrateof First} Class,, Sanga Reddy, in^{Crl.M.P.No.160 of 2O2l in C.C.No-213 of} 2016, dated O9.O3.2O22.

¶22

The petitioner herein, who is^{Accused inC.C.No.213of} 2016, Iiled a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.160^{of 2O2l under} Section 2O7 CI.P.C.^seeking the^{Court to provide certihedcopies} of F;ece Book messages, defamation^{notices, driving license,} Internet Caf6 visitors list, the^{directionsof this Court of the year} 2018 and FSL Report. The^{said application stood dismissedvide} order dated O9.O3.2O22.^{Aggrieved by thesame, the} petitioner/Accused is before this^Court.

¶23

¶24

Dr. CSI-,J Crl It.C^No.456 of2022

¶25

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner/Accused contended that} without going through^{the documents that are referred to in the} petition, it would not^{be possiblefor the petitionerto make proper} defence and,^{therefore, thepetitioner/Accusedmovedan} application for^{grant of certified copiesof the above documents'} but his request^{wasrefused by the trial Court'}

¶26

A perusal of^{the impugnedorder dated O9 03'2022discloses} that the trial^{Court refused to give copies of the abovedocuments} making an observation^{that the petitionerisblockingthe} procedure of trial^{by filing unnecessarypetitions and that the} documents^{sought for by the petitioner are yet to be marked and} without marking^{the said documents,certified copies would not} be granted.

¶27

On this day,^{learned counselfor the petitioner/Accused} -stefted that it is sufficient for the petitioner/Accused'^{if he is} allowed to^{go through the contents of the said documents'}

¶28

The learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutorreported} no objection^{to grant the relief sought for'}

¶29

Dr CSL,J Crl R C No..156 oll0ll

¶30

¶31

B. Therefore, thrs Court considers it^{desirable to dispose of the}

¶32

Crirr inal Revision Case u,ith^{the followingdirection:}

¶33

(1)The Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate ol First^Class, Sanga Reddy, is directed to^{permit the petitioner/Accusedto} go through the contents of the docurnents that^{are referred} in Crl.M.P.No.160 of 2O2l in C.C.No.213^{of 2016,if they are} available on record.

¶34

(2)The petitioner/Accused shall be^{permittedto go} through^the contents of those documents in the^{open Court inthe} presence of the Superintendent of the Court^concerned.

¶35

With the above directions, ttris Criminal^{Revision Caseis} disp rsed of.

¶36

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions pending,} if^{any, shall}

¶37

stand closed

¶38

'*-tY"rW;#''S[XA //TRUE^COPY// u/./

¶39

SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

To 1 2. J. ,i}1'gii[,fl'yfH['i#i'ffi, ,#.:."., ":: "ffi Hyderabad^(OUT) 4. Two CD^CoPies 5. One SPare^CoPY Kj. A,-

HIGH^(]OURT

DAFED:0510712022

n I SFP ?rr??

ORDEIT

CRLRO.No.456 of 2022

CRL.R.C. IS DISPOSED OF.

¶47

oa.-
V
nA
q \ tN

Thakur Raghavender Singh , Raghav v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Raghavender Singh , Raghav v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

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

B Machender Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Inkeshafunnisa Vs Abdul Mannan

Smt. Surya Kumari and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mohd. Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Kaleem Vs The State of Telangana

Tejavath Surender, And 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another