Dismissed

Lt. Col. a.. Pragathi Kumar, Hyd v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Telangana HC19 Jul 2023CRLP/14201/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition for non-prosecution and infraction. In a separate contempt order, the court closed the case as the alleged violation (missing meter) was clarified via inspection.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed for non-prosecution; All proceedings and miscellaneous petitions in the Contempt Case closed without costs.

Lt. Col. a.. Pragathi Kumar, Hyd Vs State of Telangana… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

i I I I I I

a i I iI I I i I I I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMIN AL PETITION NO: 1420 10F 2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

LT. COL. A.. PRAGATHI KUMAR, HYD, S/o Late Sri.A. Upendra Rao aged 48 Ieary,.^{Ex-gmployeeof M/s Embedded} lnfotech^(P) Ltd, worked as Director H.R, Road No.'12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶11

.....PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY public prosecutor, Hyderabad rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State bf Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh through Banjarahills P.S, Hyderabad.

¶14

Sri- Mohd. Shafiquz.aman,, lAS, Principal Secretary to Govemment, Plot No.2, Noor Nagar, Road No.10, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶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 Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 41212014 on the file of XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Enamanzil, Pioneer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad (Old C.C. No. 35/2014-lll ACMM)

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20141CRLPMP. NO: 15020 OF 20141

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the, petitioner in CC No. 41212014 on the file XIX Addition€l Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Erramanjil, Pioneer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad (Old CC No.35/2014-ltt ACMM), pending disposal of main Criminal petition

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/s A JAYANTHI ,Advocate for {he Petitioner (not being^present) and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on^{behalf of} the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I r i i i

\ \

! i t i I I II I

l I I I I i ,I l I

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VETIUGOPAL

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No. l42OL of 2Ol4

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

None appears for the petitioner. Even on the previous dates of hearing i.e., on 29.O3.2O23 and 2t.06.2023, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today, though the matter was listed under the caption^.For Dismissal,, none appeared for the petitioner.

¶30

Thus, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter vigilantty and diligently zrny more, therefore, this criminal petition is liable to be dismissed for non_ prosecution.

¶31

Iearned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State submits that in thc present criminal petition the relief is sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4l2 of 2Ol4 on the frle of XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Erramanzil, Pioneer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. He further submits that C.C.No.4 12 ot 2Ol4 on the file of XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Erramanzil, pioneer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad has been re-numbered as C.C.No.7179 of 2Ol4 and rransferred to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally and therefore, the relief sought in this criminal

¶32

¶33

petition does not survive. Hence^{seeksto dismiss the criminal} pe tition as infructuous

¶34

This Court, taking the submissions^{made by the learned} Assistant Public Prosecutor on^{record and withoutgoing into} the merits of the case, is^{inclinedto dismiss the present} criminal petition for^{non-prosecution.}

¶35

Pending miscellaneous^{applications,if any, shall stand}

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/-B.SARASWATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ca1

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Erramanjil Hyderabad

¶43

The Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station Banjara Hills Hyderabad

¶44

One CC to M/s A JAYANTHI Advocate TOPUCI

¶45

TWO CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Tetangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶46

Two CD Copies

¶47

Ponq'

¶48

¶49

i i I / I I I i i I I i j

¶50

HIGH COURT DATEO:19IO7t2oa3

¶51

ORDER CRLP.No.142O1 ot 2O14

¶52

eSrAi 1:
L)Jq ?B IUG rul
')
,y
JI:r-..-"

¶53

Potq. rq\sla-s'

¶54

DISSMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITTON AS TNFRUCTUOUS

¶55

[^321e ]

¶56

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

¶57

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶58

PRESENT

¶59

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶60

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 656 OF 2023

¶61

Contempt Case Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to^punish the Respondent herein for, willfully violating, the Order of the High Court dated^25- O1-2023 in WP.No.1670 of 2023.

¶62

Between:

¶63

Khaja Moinuddin, S/o. Khaja Hafeezuddin, Aged about 54^years, Occ:Journalist, R/o.H.No.'17-8-415l1 1, Bagh-E-Jahanara, Hyderabad,^T.S.

¶64

...PETITIONER

¶65

AND

¶66

SRI.G.RAGHUMA REDDY, S/o. Not known to the^petitioner, Aged about Major, Occ. Chairman and Managing Director of TSSPDCL, O/o. Having office at 6-1-50, B-Block, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T.S. - 500004.

¶67

SRI.S.SUDHAKAR, S/o. Not known to the^petitioner, Aged about Major,^The Divisional Engineer, Operation City Vll Asmangadh, South^(Circle) Hyderabad, T-S.

¶68

SRI.M.A.KALEEM, S/o. Not known to the^petitioner, Aged about^{Major, The} Assistant Engineer, Operation Under Control E.R.O. I Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶69

..CONTEMNORS

¶70

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri.Syed Yasar Mamoon

¶71

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri.R.Vinod Reddy,^{SC for TS GENCO}

¶72

The Gourt made the following Order^:-

¶73

¶74

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶75

C.C.No. 656 of 2o23

¶76

ORDER:

¶77

Lcarning counsel representing the respondent Contemnor has filed a report stating that as directed by this Court, the premises was inspected on 27.O1.2023 at 3 p.m. in the presence of the petitioner and it was found that there was no meter as alleged by the petitioner in the said premises and the number of the meter given by him is in respect of the person who was living in Santosh Nagar Cross Roads, I.S.Sadan. It is submitted that there is no electricily connection and hence, no electric supply existed in the premises of house bearing No.17-22lO/2lA of the petitioner and that the respondents have never taken away any meter from the premises.

¶78

Learned counsel for the petitioner is also heard and submitted that inspection was conducted.

¶79

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶80

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶81

Contempt Case, shall stand closed.

¶82

¶83

Sd/.M.MANJULA DEPUTY REG.ISTRAR 1Vl.ⁱ rl:',. SECTION OFFICER

¶84

//TRUE COPY//

¶85

1 Sri.G Raqhuma Reddv. Chairman and Managing Director ot TSSpDCL, O/o.

¶86

2 Sri S Havins Sudhakar, office at 6-1-50. rhe Divisionat e-srock, E"si^rn r -i;;p&ffi ;; d;;;,iir"'brYivilrr r - -ivir vr!, jj'y"i#bad, v Asmansadh,r S - 500004 South (Circie) Hyderabad. T.S.

¶87

3 Srr.M.A.Kaleem, The Assistant. Engineer, Operation Under Control E.R.O. g Chan^ch.algucia Hyderabad, Tela ng'ana.

¶88

4 One CC to Sri Syed yasar Mamoo,-n, Advocate [OpUCl One CC to Sri R.Vinod Reddy AdvocaG iOFil6; "",

¶89

6 rne Section Olficer. O.S. Section, High Cburt Al'itaings, Hyderabad. 7 Two CD Copies

¶90

SA Prrq

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712023

ORDER

CC.No.656 o12023

e STAIG o
q
-)
O 28 AUG 2M
,.)
\ *

¶96

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶97

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶98

\s<.tr-B

Lt. Col. a.. Pragathi Kumar, Hyd v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lt. Col. a.. Pragathi Kumar, Hyd 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandla Srinivasa Rao, Khammam Dt. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Satya Prakash Jindal , Nikku Bai Vs The State of Telangana

N.Krishna Reddy, West Bengal and Anr., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and 3 Otrs.

Dattatreya Vs the State of Telangana, Rep., Pp and Another

Chinta Veera Bhadra Rao, Medchal Dt., Vs Chinta Nagabhadramani, Medchal Dt and 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Rajesh Mittal, S/o.Late Sri Rameshwar Das, Vs The State of Telangana