In this criminal petition, the petitioner sought to reopen evidence recorded before the trial court. The court held that since the trial is almost completed and a revision petition regarding the reopening is pending, there is nothing to adjudicate at this stage.
Petition dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s4 ]
t I
I
HIGH COURTFOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA
IVIONDAY ,THESIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINALPETITIONNO: 1488 OF 2017
Between:
Smt RamaBharathi, Secunderabad, W/o'A VasudevaRao' Age-dabout 41 years' occ: Housewife,Ryo.ili""N;roi,-Fiancis Apartments,-west Marredpallv, Secunderabad
"'PETlrloNERyAccusED
AND
...Respondents/ComPIainants
PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the lrr,lemorandumof Grounds of criminal Petiiion, the High co.u{.!r!v.be pleased i"6qri.n the cc No.294tiOOOon the fite of the v Additional chief Metropolitan -rrrlagistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Nampally, Magistrate cumprincipai Hyderabad,against the petitioners
l.A. NO:'l OF 2017(CRLPMP' NO: 1464 OF20171
Petition underSection482 of Cr'P C praying that in the. circumstances stated inthe Memoranir. Li crorna, of criminal Petition, the High court may be ii"i.LJt" grant interimstay of ail furtherproceedingsin c_c No.294l2006.onthe file of the VAdditional Chilf Metropolitan Magistratecum Principal Magistrate of JuvenileJusticeBoard,'r'r,,purrv'Hyderabad,includingtheappearanceofthe Petitionersherein,penjingdisposaloithe above criminal petition and pass
This Petitioncomingon for hearing 'upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds ofCriminal Petition and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri N SRIDHAR REDDY,AdvocateforthePetitionerandthePublicProsecutoronbehalfofthe RespondentNo.1. andof Sri S'R'Sanku Advocatefor the RespondentNo'2'
The Gou( madethe following:ORDER
I
I-III., IIO i'BI-E SMT..IT]STI(]E G. ANUPAM,\ ( Hr'.}(R,{,ARTIIY CRIMINAL I'E1'ITI ON No . l,lSti o f 2).1t":
ORDI.,tT:
Hear J Ieamed counsel for the pedtioner. 2. It is.eported by the leamed counsel for the petirioner that evidence wiLs already recorded before the trial Court and the case and is comirrg up for examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At that point of time, a petition was filed r() reopen the evidence bel rre the trial Coun which was allowed. Questioning the said orders, a criminal revision case is filed and the same is pending bel rre this Court. Therefore, nothing srrn,ives lbr adjudication n this Criminal petition. Further. it is r.eporled that recently, the c e -facto complainant has died.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if anv, sl:all stand
closed.
Sd/. ,'.V,IJ. PRASAD AS SISlI,I\IT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY//
SE';-IOh/ OFFICER
To,
\ \
HIGH COURT
GAC, J
DATED:06/02/20 :3
ORDER
CRLP.No.1488 ol 2017
24 S -4T6
,;
\ (
;,ir ll
?'l Ftir 2[21
<br>
CRINIIN{L PT;TII ION IS DI!IISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
@
( n
t \rln
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should adjudicate on a petition to reopen evidence recorded before the trial court.
Whether the dismissal of a criminal revision petition pending before the High Court affects the disposal of the current petition.
Smt Rama Bharathi
State of Telangana
Dr. Doodala Bharathi
G. Anupama Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
