Dismissed

Gangavarapu Ramakrishna, Khammam Dt. v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Telangana HC20 Jun 2023CRLP/10510/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings against the petitioner, the High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the underlying case was already disposed of as an uncontested dismissal in the court below. Consequently, no further orders were required.

What did the court decide?

No further orders required as the underlying case was disposed as uncontested dismissal.

Gangavarapu Ramakrishna, Khammam Dt. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee l

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION N^{o. 10510 0F 2014}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gangavarapu Ramakrishna,^{S/o. Narsimhaiah,Agedabout.55.} Y9ars, !.9;^{H'No 7-} r r z,-rrarinvli"rmapeta, Moihe^{Road, Sarapaka, Burgampahad Mandal,Khammam} District.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^No'1

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court Buildings,} Hyderabad.

¶12

Yadamakanti Venkateswara^{Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, aged-about.40} years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Laxmipuram^{Village,BurgampahadMandal'} Khammam District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482^{of ct.P .c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High courtmay} be pleased to^quash the^{proceedings in c.c No.676of 2014on the file of the} Judicial First Class lVlagistrate^{at Bhadrachalam.}

¶15

This Petition coming on^{for hearing, uponperusingthe Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearingthe argumentsof} sri K. Ramakrishna, Advocate^{representing Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, Advocate} for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prosecutor appearlngfor the RespondentNo.1} and sri M. Rajamalla Reddy,^{Advocate appearingon behalfof the Respondent} No.2,

¶16

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.'t0510 of 2014

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

Heard Sri K. Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, [earned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.RajamatLa Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent. Sri Khaza Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor is present.

¶20

This crimina[ petition was filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.676 of 2014 on the fite of the Judicial First Ctass Magistrate at BhadrachaLam, registered for the offences punishabte under Sections 447,427,294(8) and 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short^.the rPC').

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cause in the subject matter of the criminal petition does not survive and seeks to dismiss this crimina[ petition as infructuous.

¶22

EVV,J cRLP 10510 2014

¶23

¶24

Learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor by furnishing a copy of the case details which was downloaded from E-Courts website stated that the subject matter in the criminal petition is disposed in the nature of uncontested-dismissed dated 06.06.2023 in Crt.M.P.No.23Z/2073 on the fite of JudiciaI First Ctass Magistrate, Bhadrachatam and hence no further orders are required. Therefore, takes no objection for the same.

¶25

ln view of the submissions made by both the counsel this

¶26

Court is inctined to dismiss this criminal petition as infructuous.

¶27

As a sequel, misceltaneous petitions, pending if any, shall. stand closed.

¶28

SD/. P. CH.^NAGABUSHAMBA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Judicial^{1't Class Magistrate At Bardachalam'}

¶33

fwo CCs^{to the puUtic piosecutor, High Courtfor the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶34

a. oil" cC to^{Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, Advocate^[oPUC]}

¶35

;. o;; cc^{to sri M. RaiamallaReddv,Advocate[oPUC]}

¶36

Two CD^CoPies

MPw

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010612023

1 gE 5T416:
ooJ 1 2 JAN 202[ a
i
t C55p,rlCrri gO
ORDER

¶41

CRL.P.No.10510 of 2014

¶42

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶43

cc{C4 Y \cx' af(,r

¶44

AS INFRUCTUOUS

Gangavarapu Ramakrishna, Khammam Dt. v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangavarapu Ramakrishna, Khammam Dt. v. State of Telangana, 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Mohd.Imtiaz Malik Vs Akberunnisa Begum and Another

B. Chandra Kaladhar Reddy, Secbad and Ano Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Gopannagari Narender Reddy, R.R.Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and 2 Othrs

Bathula Pedda Venkata Subbaiah, Rr.Dt and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Gaddam Santosh Kumar, R.R. Dt. and 2 Othrs Vs Gaddam Harsha, Hyd and 2 Othrs

Nerugommula Sujatha, Karimnagar Dist. and 2 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P. Andanr