Dismissed

K. Rama Rao, Hyd v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023CRLP/14513/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Hyderabad dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the petitioner was not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter and accordingly granted the prayer to dismiss the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is dismissed as the petitioner is not evincing any interest to prosecute the matter.

K. Rama Rao, Hyd Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14513 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Rama Rao, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao

¶9

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶12

2 Sri M. Shanker,, S/o. Late Arjun, Aged about 49 yrs., Occ Business, Ryo.3-1221'sowbhagya Nagar' L'B Nagar' Hyderabad'

¶13

...REspoNDENr/coMpLArNANr 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 orders dated 13-11-2014 passed in Crl.R.P.No.138 ot 2014 on the file of the Honble Xlll Addl. District and Sessions^judge, R.R. Dist., L.B. Nagar.

¶14

LA NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLPMP. NO: 15331 OF 2014)

¶15

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 stay all further proceedings in C.C. No.99 of 2014 on the file of Hon'ble lll Special Magistrate, at Hasthinapuram, L.B. Nagar, R.R. Dist, Pending disposal of the main Quash petition

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Krishna Murthy Devarakonda, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri T. V. V. Koteswara Rao, Advocate for Respondent No. 2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I !

¶19

I I

¶20

HONO .IIIABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUCi()PAL

¶21

CR MINAL PETITION No. 14513 of 2(t14

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

'l'l- is Cl rLiral I'ctition is filed seeking tr qttasl , tLc Order passccl n^(lr [':.P.No. 138 ol-2Ct14, dated 13.- 1.20 lr or: the file of the learr cl XIII Additional Distnct^{anciSt:ssions.Iudge,} L.B.Nagar. Il rrqa Retldv Distrir:t.

¶24

FIearrl l e learncd cortnsel for the petitionr:r^. ind lcarned Assislant Pu r1rc I)rosecutor rtppearring for rcsl;onr)cIli-State

¶25

Sli li.rr l'na Mr-Lrthy Dr-'vrrrakonda, lezrrtred^r:or nst I [or the petitioner fa 1,. subrnits tl'rat No Obiection Vak.e liLt has been issucd to tl ,l p(ltitior-ler qr.rite Iong timc, s,till his nitme has appcart d a ccunsel for the petitioner. This Court on 16.06.202:) -'rirs issued frcsh notice to tl-re p:t tio:rer and zrccordi^-rg1y, n,)ficc has becn carried oLtL uid.e Lr'. tlis.No.5O2 of 2023, dated ) .O7 .20'23. The learned XI Adc itiorurl Drstrict and Session s Jt Cr1e, R:rnga Reddr. District has sLrr rmittcd the compli:Lnc e c;ort in the present criminal petitiol al,)ng with the repor, ,f k:arned XIll Adclitional Dis -rict ar d Scssions .Iudgc, Rian, r R,:dd), District, L.B.Nagar, w lererr,. rt. lras been t:learlv sta tc L thrlt tlrc ri,ife of the petitioner refr-rs:rl to take the Col-rrl no1 cr Tirercftrre, thc learned counsirl 1br llre ltctitioner seeks t,r dis rj ;s thc prescnl. criminal petitiorr.

¶26

¶27

Learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State is present and takes no objection to the same.

¶28

This Court upon perusing the material borne on record and the reports submitted by the learned counsel on record is of the view that the petitioner is not evincing any interest to prosecute the. matter. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.

¶29

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶30

closed.

¶31

Sd/. G. SIREE,SHA ASSTSTANT/ REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY//

¶32

sEcn6N oFFlcER

¶33

To.'1. The Xlll Additional District & Sessions Judge, R. R. District, L B' Nagar' i ftr" iriSoecial Maoistrate at^{Hastinapuram,L. B. Nagar, R. R. District'} 5. fwo CCi to the^{Puiblic Prosecutor, High Court for the Stateof Telangana'} IOUTI

¶34

bne eC to Sri Krishna^{Murthy DevarakondaAdvocateI} OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri^{T V V Koteswdra Rao Advocate} [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies

MBC

HIIGH COURT

DATED: 2010712023

i\ ,-ri, i- i ,at r,
I ,,-, )
t '.:
/r
It' 0'i SEP 2$8
.,.,I
)"

¶39

ORDER

¶40

CRLP. No.'l 4ti13 of 201 4

¶41

D!SMISSING THE CRIMINAl- PETTTION

¶42

(
.r ,']-2

K. Rama Rao, Hyd v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Rama Rao, 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

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

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

Javed Razack Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Yellapragada Maruthi Aravind Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

V.Upender Reddy and 2 Others Vs Smt v.Madhuma Reddy and Another