Dismissed

Pilli Uday Kumar, Hyd v. Smt.Pilli Vijaya Mary, Nizamabad Dist and Two Others

Telangana HC14 Nov 2023CRLP/11861/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Single Bench dismissed CR.P. No. 11861 of 2015 filed under Section 482 CrPC as infructuous on lack of petitioner instructions, recording no objection by the State, while granting liberty to work out remedies.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty granted to petitioner to work out remedies available under law.

Pilli Uday Kumar, Hyd Vs Smt.Pilli Vijaya Mary, Nizamabad Dist and Two Others — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAYOF^NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V, VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: l'1861 OF 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pilli Uday Kumar, Hyd, S/o. Late P. Raja Sikhamani, Occ.^{Priave employee,} R/o. H.No. 382, Venkateswara Nagar Colony,^{Housing Boardcolony, Moulali,} Hyderabad

¶8

...Petitioner/Revision/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

Smt.Pilll Vijaya lvlary, Wo. P.Uday Kumar, aged^{about 33 Years, Occ} Household.

¶11

Pilli Stalin Vincent, S/o. P-Uday Kumar, aged about 3^{yrs, lvlinor,Bot residents} of Balagoud Quarters, Near Grama^{Panchayath, Yellareddy Village and} tvlandal, Nizamabad Dist. (2 Being lr4inor, Rep By^{his National Gardian mother} 1st Respondent).

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,^{High Courtat Hyderabad.}

¶13

...RespondenURespondent

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the Circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^HighCourtmay be pleased to quash the order dt. 07.08.2015^passed in CRL.R.P.No.^{34 oI 2014} on the file of the lX Addl. Sessions Judge, at Kamareddy,^{Nizamabad District.}

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015^(CRLPMP. NO: 11852 0F 20151

¶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^Courtmay be pleased to stay all further proceedings in^pursuance to the^orderdated 07 .1O.2O14 passed in M.C.No. 8 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial^FirstClass Magistrate at Yellareddy, Nizamabad District,^pending disposal^{of the above} criminal petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GOPALA RAO AMANCHARLA V, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.3, and of Sri. DAMODHAR RAO, for the Respondent No.1 and 2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{SRT JUSTICE E' V' VENUGOPAL} CRIMIN^{AL PETITION No. 11861oF 2015}

¶20

o RDER:

¶21

This criminal petition is^frled to quash^{the order dated} ol 2Ol4^{on the file of IX} in Crl.R.P.No.34 07.08.2015 Passed Additional^{Sessions Judge, at Kamareddy Nizamabad District'}

¶22

Learned^{counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the} efforts^{made to contactthe petitioner and obtain instructionsare} gone in vain^{and hence seeks to close the criminalpetition due to} lack of instructions

¶23

Mr.Vizarath^{AIi, LearnedAssistant PublicProsecutorls} present and^{takes no objectionto the same'}

¶24

Recording^{the submissions made by the learned counsel for} the petitioner^{and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor' this Court} is inclined^{todismiss the Criminal Petition as infructuous'} However,thiscourtisinclinedtograntlibertytothepetitionerto work out^{remedies as availableunder larv'}

¶25

Accordingly,^{thecriminal petitionisdismissedas} infructuous,^{granting liberty to the petitioner to workout} remedies^{as availableunder law'}

¶26

¶27

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, sl_rall stand closed.

¶28

Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR ASSTSTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// ()" SECTION OFFICER

¶29

To,

¶30

1 . The IX Addl. Sessions Judge, at Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶31

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State Of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶32

One CC to Sri. GOPALA RAO AMANCHARLA V, Advocate IOPUC]

¶33

One CC to Sri. DAMODAR RAO, Advocate [OUT]

¶34

Two CD Copies

ANV

HlGH COURT

EW, J

DATED:1411112023

STAT E oA
,t
(
Jq I \ 1$\ C)
<br>o t .r<br>!)
i
i D E S PN

¶40

ORDER

¶41

CRLP.No.11861 of 2015

¶42

CRMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED

¶43

AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶44

f,
\ )D)+

Pilli Uday Kumar, Hyd v. Smt.Pilli Vijaya Mary, Nizamabad Dist and Two Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pilli Uday Kumar, Hyd v. Smt.Pilli Vijaya Mary, Nizamabad Dist and Two Others

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

Dungrothu Nagaraju Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Dungrothu Nagaraju Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another]

Ramesh chandra sinha and Another Vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office, New Delhi

Kandi Ram Reddy Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Mr.G.Ram Murthy Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Akash Deepsingh Virk Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp