Dismissed

B.Rajesekhar Reddy v. C.v.Rami Reddy and Another

Telangana HC1 Nov 2023CRLP/12549/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed by an accused to quash an appellate order. The appellate court had allowed the complainant to mark a supplementary legal notice regarding bouncing cheques. The High Court held that permitting the document would not cause prejudice to the trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C was dismissed.

B.Rajesekhar Reddy Vs C.v.Rami Reddy and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^329e ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEE. V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMIN AL PETITION^{NO: 12549OF 2014}

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Raiesekhar Reddv, S/o. B.^{Narayana Reddy,aged about53. years,} oli-6G"eJs nvo.^{air'avani Nasarcol6nv,Raiendianaoa;,$1;t15*iX3[r..,}

¶9

AND

¶10

1 C. V. Rami Reddy S/o^{C.V. Nagi Reddy,Aged about 74 years,Occ Business,} Raiendranaoar. Ranqa^{Reddy District}

¶11

2 in'lJ6tit" oii.ltangu";,^{Ripiesentedby its Public Prosectitor, High Court of} Hyderabad

¶12

'..RESpoNDENT/coMpLAtNANrs

¶13

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr'P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may} be pleased to^quash the^{order dt.09.09.2014 passedin crl.RP.No.139of 2013 on} the file of the court^{of the Hon'blelv Additional District and.Sessions Judge at} L.B.NagaratRangaReddyDistrictagainsttheorderinCrl-MP.No.1832ot2013 in cc No. 316 of^{2O12 on the file of the courtof the Hon'ble l. Special Magistrate} at Rajendranagar,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict}

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLP^{MP. NO:128990F20141}

¶15

Petition under Section^{482of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High courtmay} be pleased to stay^{all further proceedings in cc No. 316 of 2012on the file of the} Court of the Hon'ble l.^{Special Magistrate at Rajendranagar,Ranga Reddy} District

¶16

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^{Petition and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri B Shiva} Kumar, Advocate for^{the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutoron behalf} of the Respondent^No.2

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

HOITOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12549 of2OI4

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal^petition is frted seeking to quash the order in Crl.R.P.No. 139 of 2Ot3, dated O9.09.2014 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short .the appellate Court) confirming the order in Crl.M.p.No. lg32 of 2013 in C.C.No.316 of 2Ot2, dated 10.12.2013 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate Court at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short the trial Court).

¶22

2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as the learned Assistant Government pleader appearing for respondent-State. perused the record.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are t}lat respondent No. 1/complainant averred that respondent No. lexamined himself as PW. I and marked Ex.pl to p9. Due to over sight respondent No. 1 marked Ex.p4, legal notice

¶24

¶25

pertaining to dishonour of cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- which is not the subject matter of this case. The case relates^to bouncing of three cheques of Rs.3,OO,O0O/- each^and respondent No.1 has not marked the legal notice related^to bouncing of three cheques. It is^just and^necessaryto mark the legal notice issued for dishonour of three cheques pertaining to this case in the place of legal notice Ex.P4.

¶26

Aggrieved by which, respondent No. t herein liled Criminal Revision Petition No. 139 of 2013 before the learned appellate Court. The learned appellate Court after examining the material facts before it, has disposed of the criminal revision petition, permitting respondent No. I^to move the proposed document as additional exhibit. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is preferred.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned appellate Court ought to have appreciated^the submissions made before the learned trial Court, but in^a mechanical manner the said criminal revision petition has

¶28

¶29

¶30

been disposed of permitting respondent No. 1 to move the proposed document as additional exhibit which would vitiate the trial. Hence seeks to allow the present criminal petition.

¶31

On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State taking objection to the same would submit that no harm would be caused if any additional documents would be permitted to be allowed to conduct the free and fair trial. Hence seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶32

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent_ State, this Court is of the opinion that this case is pending from quite long time, the order passed by the learned trial Court is rightly and appropriately upheld by the learned appellate Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner.

¶33

¶34

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed.

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶36

criminal petition, shall stand closed.

¶37

o.r,rtol'rYo#oo',i}tk //TRUE COPY// 7,,2 SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1 The lV Additional^{District and Sessionsjudge,Ranga Reddy Districtat L. B.} 2 iliXSoeciat Naoar- Judicial^{Maqistrate Court- I at Raie-ndranagar'R R District'} J d"LdCio sii^{B ShivaK-umarAdvocate [OPUC]} 4 i,iJI CC"'L]6"^{pJbtic prosecutor,High bourt f6r the Stateof Telangana.} tourl 5. Two CD CoPies MBC GJ $r

¶39

HIGH COURT

¶40

DATED: 0111112023

¶41

iHE srA 14:
(
o.J
2 3 DEI 2023 o
.A
7
* oEspatCH €p *
ORDER

¶42

GRLP.No.12549 o12014

¶43

DISMISS!NG THE CRIM!NAL PETITION

¶44

WITHOUT COSTS

¶45

X).t

B.Rajesekhar Reddy v. C.v.Rami Reddy and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Rajesekhar Reddy v. C.v.Rami Reddy and Another

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

D.Sriramulu Reddy Vs S.Deepak Reddy

M. Vasu Varma Vs the State of Telangana and 2 Others

D.Sriramulu Reddy Vs S.Deepak Reddy

A.Mallikarjuna Reddy , Malli , Arjun and Another Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

C. Rama Raju, Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Syed Muneer, Hyd and 2 Otrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep by P.P.,Hyd