Dismissed

Kurama Singa Raju, Khm Dist. v. P.P., Hyd and 3 Othrs

Telangana HC9 Nov 2022CRLRC/89/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Case filed against an order of the Sessions Judge for default due to non-appearances of the petitioner's counsel and failure to report on maintenance payments.

What did the court decide?

Director to this Criminal Revision Case for default and confirmation of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 2014.

Kurama Singa Raju, Khm Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

i I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 89 of 20'16

¶7

Criminal Revision case under Sections 3971401 of Crl.P.C against the Judgment in Crl.A No.^'181/2014 dated 30.11.2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge at khammam. Preferred against Order DVC.No.1 of 2012 daled: 06-12-2013 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, at Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

kurama singa raju, S/o Late Bojji, Aged about 54 years, Occ SHPO, R!/o CHNC,Garla, Khammam, Khammam District

¶10

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad

¶13

Kurama Sunitha, W/o Singa Raju, Aged about 37 years, Occ Pharmacist resident of D.No.6-2-46lC/1 , Jammibanda, Kharnmam, Khammam. District

¶14

Kurama Sandeep, S/o Singa Raju, Aged 20 years resident of D.No.6-246/C/1, Jammibanda,Kharnmam, Khammam. District

¶15

Kurama Shasank, S/o Singa Raju, Aged about 12 years, Minor Rep by his mother K Sunitha resident of D.No.6-2-46lC/1, Jammibanda,Khammam, Khammam. District

¶16

...RespondenUPetitioners

¶17

CRL.R.C.M.P. NO: 123 OF 2016

¶18

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances state in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision case, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in DVC 1 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, Khammam District dated 06-12-2013 by confirming the Crl A.No. 181 of 2014 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, pending disposal of Crl.RC.

¶19

Counsel for the Pet lioners: SRl. M. K. RAJ KUMAR, (not being present)

¶20

Counsel for the Res pondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

Counsel for the Res pondent No.2 to 4: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

I I

¶24

THE HON,BLE DT.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶25

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.E9 of 2016

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2015 in Crl.A.No. l8l of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam District

¶28

When the matter came up for hearing on2l.09.2022,there was no representation by learned counsel lor petitioner. Hence, the matter was posted under the caption 'For dismissal' to 18.10.2022. On 18.10.2022 also rhere was no representation on both the counsel. Hence, the matter is directed to be posted on 9.11.2022. Even today, there is no representation by leamed counsel for petitioner as well as the leamed counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3 There is no inlbrmation before the Courl whether the direction given by this Court on 19.01.2016 to pay 50% of the maintenance amount to the respondents 2 to 4 is cornplied or not. 4. Hence, the Criminal Rcvision Case is disrnissed for default, confirming the order dated 30. I 1.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal

¶29

¶30

No. l8l ,'f 2014 on the file of the principal liessions Judge,

¶31

Kharrma r District.

¶32

liscellaneous petitions, if any penrling shall stand

¶33

closed.

¶34

l--

¶35

Sd/. P.."S.S.C.S.M.SARMA Dt:PUI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYi/ \ .lt )

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

The Principa Sessions Judge at khammam.Khammarn District (with records if an ')

¶39

The lAdditir nal Judicial Magistrate of lClass, Khamrnam (with records, if any)

¶40

Two CCs to t re Public Prosecutor,High Court for the lltate of Telangana, at Hyderaba< .(OUT)

¶41

One CC to S tl. M. K. RAJ KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

Two CD Copi rs

.---

KAM

I i

HIGH COUR T

DT.GRR J

DATED:0911 112022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.S I of 2016

-a .:=_
1\ s14 14
t.\ (lx .<br><(,,(
(, 7 S [E[ 2022 >r
-''//
r.-

¶52

DISNIISSIN(; TII^,, CITL.RC I.'OR DEFAULT

¶53

,2<br>/ra)
ly
N\A-
llr
p \ \ ,

Kurama Singa Raju, Khm Dist. v. P.P., Hyd and 3 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurama Singa Raju, Khm Dist. v. P.P., Hyd and 3 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kota Narasimha Rao and another Vs Kota Venkata Krishna and 5 others

Kammati Rajender Vs Smt. Kammati Vinoda

Bakaram Amarender Reddy Vs Suresh and Another

Mohd Ghouse Khan, Hyd Vs Mrs. Vimal Vasanth Karwande, Hyd and 4 Othrs

Eshwarlal, Hyderabad., Vs S.Gopal Reddy, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Komati Muthaiah Vs Komati Sai Charan