Disposed

Madikonda Bhujanga Reddy v. The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Telangana HC21 Nov 2023CRLP/13005/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing and stay of proceedings in a criminal case. Counsel argued the subject matter was civil and abused process laws. Court held the trial court must examine the subject matter but dispensed with petitioner's appearance due to his age, directing the trial court to conclude the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's appearance dispensed with; trial Court directed to conclude the matter within three months.

Madikonda Bhujanga Reddy Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13005 OF 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

MADIKONDA BHUJANGA REDDY, S/o^Late Sri^{Malla Reddy,Aged about 72 years,} Occ Agriculturist, Rr/o H.No.1 3-6-433115 Netaii Nagar Colony,^{MehdipatnamRing} Road, Hyderabad.

¶8

... Petitioner/Accused No.'l

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana.,Rep.,Public Prosecutor,^HtghCourt at^Hyderabad.

¶11

S.Hanumanth Reddy, S/o. Late S.Vasudeva Reddy,^{Aged about 56 years,} Occupation: Business, R/o. H.No.4-2-20^{Attapur Village,Rajendernagar,} Cyberabad.

¶12

... Respondents/ Respondents

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Petition, the^High Court^maybe pleased to quash the pending criminal case in C.C.No.420 oi 2014 on the file of the Court of the XVll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at^{Rajendernagar arising out} of Crime No.928 of 2O11 of P,S.Rajendernagar,^{in the interestof justice and in the} circumstances set forth in the^petition.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 201s^(CRL M.P.NO.12938 0F²⁰¹⁵⁾

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^High Court may be^pleased to^stay all further proceedings including the appearance of^{the petitioner} as accused^{No.1 of} C.C. No.420 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the XVll Metropolitan^Magiskate, Cyberabad at Rajendernagar arising out of^CrimeNo.928 of^{201 1 of P.S.} Rajendernagar, Cyberabad in the interest^{of justice andin the circumstances of the} case

¶16

The Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Petition ancl^the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of^{Mr. K. Ravinder,} rep for Sri Mohd Shafiuddin, Advocate for the Petitione(s), Public Prosecutor Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy Adv,rcate for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13OO5 OF 2015

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This criminal petition is frled seeking to quash the pending criminal case in C.C.No.420 of 2Ol4 on the hle of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendernagar arising out of Crime No.928 of 2O1l of P.S.Rajendernagar.

¶22

Mr.K.Rarrinder, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the whole subject matter of the crime is civil in nature and the ingredients of section 42O lpc does not attract and continuation of trial before the trial Court will ultimately result in abuse of process of law and the petitioner is aged about 8O years as on today and is subjected to harassment and the trial is being conducted as against the petitioner and attending the Court at this age is very difficult for the petitioner and hence prayed to allow this petition.

¶23

l,earned counsel for the unolficial respondent would also submit that as the subject matter of the petition is civil in nature, civil Court alone could decide the fact whether the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser or not and Mr.K. Pratap Reddy, who has been arrayed as A4 in the charge sheet is no way concerned to the said

¶24

¶25

crime and the trial is in^{progress and it is a triablematter zmd} only upon conducting thorough trial^{the subjectmatter of the} crime will be decided by the learned trial^{Court after examir.ing} the evidence before it and hence^{prayed to dismiss the petition.}

¶26

Having regard to the submissions made by^{the learned} counsel for the petitioner and unofficial^{respondent this Court is} of the view that the subject matter of the criminal^{petition haLs to} be examined thoroughly by the learned trial Court^{andsince' the} petitioner is old aged about 8O years therefore, it is in the^intt:rest of justice that the appearance of the^petitioner is^hereby dispensed with unless and until it is required by the^{trial Oourt} and trial Court is also required to conclude the matter^preferably within 3 months of the receipt of the copy of the order^ol' this Court.

¶27

With the above directions, this Criminal petition is^disllosed

¶28

¶29

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand clc,sed.

¶30

SD/-B:SARAIiWATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fi,'

¶31

SECTION C)FFICER

¶32

To,

¶33

1 The Vlll Metropolitan tvlagistrate, Cyberabad at^{Rajendra Nagar.} 2 The Station House Officer, Rajendernagar^Police Station,^Cyberabac,. 3 One CC to SRl. MOHD SHAFIUDDIN Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI^REDDY Advocate [OPU(]I 5 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the^{State of Telangana.} [OUT] t) Two CD Copies.

¶34

YJR 3-$

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11112023

ORDER

CRLP.No.13005 of 201

1EL4 ,,JG,
nr.
.?
v*
c.)
KJ s'.V
{ a
t-- ..e
l!o (-)
<br>*
c H 9\r

¶40

DISPOSING OF THE CRL.P.

¶41

\b ,u
&-.\s-

Madikonda Bhujanga Reddy v. The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madikonda Bhujanga 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

Smt.Peruvala Shobha , Shobha Rani, Hyd., Vs Peruvala Niranjan Reddy, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Mir Ashwaq Ali Khan, Hyderabad and 4 Others Vs P.P., State of Telangana, Hyderabad and Anr.

M/s. Sai Bhanu Rice Mills Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Rehman Vs Smt, Rizwana Begum and Another

Mrs. Usha Agarwal Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another