Dismissed

V.Aravindh Reddy v. The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Telangana HC13 Jul 2023CRLP/12863/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash criminal proceedings. Upon review of the Memorandum of Grounds, the online case status showing disposal via contest-acquittal, and hearing counsel, the Court held that the cause of action did not survive. The petition was dismissed as infructuous without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition No. 12863 of 2015 was dismissed as infructuous without costs.

V.Aravindh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I I

¶2

[^32ee ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12863 oF 20'15

¶8

Between:

¶9

V.Aravindh Reddy, S/o Laxma Reddy, Aged 50 years, Occ;Business, R/o Villa No. 139, lndu Aranya, Bandlaguda, Nagole, LB Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

.,.PETITIONER/3'd ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana., rep. the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶13

S. Ram Reddy, S/o Raghunandan Reddy, Aged 36 years, Occ : Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-382/b/91, Bhanu Nagar, Champapet, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to cjuash C.C.No.1099 of 2O14, on the file of the t Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar in so far as the petitioner is concerned and pass order or orders which are deemed fit.

¶16

CRL.P.(MP).NO:12805 OF 201 5)

¶17

Petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C p.aying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay ail further proceedings in C.C.No.1099 of 2014, on the file oi the on the file of the ll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar in so far as the petitioner is concerned pending disposal of the quash petition and to pass such other order or orders which are deemed fit.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the N/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.lndus Law Firm, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Advocate for the Respondent No.2 None Appeared.

¶19

The Court made the following Order : -

¶20

HOI\ )URABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.UENIT6OIAL

¶21

OF I1IINAL PETITION No. 12863 of llol5>

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Cr rr: inal Petition is filed seel.:ing to quash the proceedings a r,ainst the petitioner in C.C.No. I Ci!^g of 2O14, on the lilc 01' the earned II Metropolitan Magistrat,r^(.)!'berabad at L.B.Nagar-.

¶24

L,earnecl :c,unsel for the petitioner submits; tl-rat the cause in the pres 'nt criminal petition does not survive for adjurdicatron.^'1'herefore, no further orderl; an-e ;-equired and hence secl<s t< clismiss the same as infructuous.

¶25

t I

¶26

Sri Vize ath Ali, learned Assistant Pub i<: F'rosecutor appearing, lor e,;pondent-State by furnishinll the r:rrpy of online case sratus u, uld submit that the subject Caletrclar Case has been disposer of on the file of II Metropolit.e r M agistrate, \ras Cyberabad al L.B.Nagar and the nature of i isposal contested-acqr ittal- Therefore, no further order; are required ancl hence e,rks to dismiss the Crirninzrl Pe:ition as infructuous

¶27

¶28

¶29

Recording the^{submissions madc by the learned counsel} for the petitioner and learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutor} appearing for the respondent-State^{and on perusing the online} case status, this Court is inclined to^{dismissthe present} Criminal Petition as infructuous.

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{pending in this criminal}

¶31

petition, shall stand closed.

¶32

Sd/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTAryT^REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY// (21> SEC;ION^OFFICER

¶33

To
l
1. The ll Metropolitan Magistate' Cyberabad at L B Nagar
2. Two CC's to the public prJ.!tr-tl,i, uig[ court ror th; State of Telangana at
Hvderabad. (OUT)
3 iji,;"cc i;ill.rn6r. Law Firm' Advocate [oPUc]
4. Two CD CoPies
SA
v

HIGH COUR^-

DATED:131A^tn023

ORDER

I )?- 6 !,-i111a'
v
.)
)) 2 4 [l}B2m o
).'
<br>2,,
-,
..a"'

¶39

CRL.P.No.1: 863 of 2015

¶40

CRIMINAI, PEI II'ION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTIJ( US WITHOUT COSTS.

¶41

{"\2,

V.Aravindh Reddy v. The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Aravindh Reddy v. The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

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

Sri v.Sambasiva Rao, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Narender Kumar Patel, Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Vinirramaa Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Afroze Siddiqui Vs the Commissioner of Police

P. Kanakaiah Vs The Managing Director Tsrtc

Chinna Babu, Hyd Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.