Dismissed

Gireesh Kumar Sanghi, Telangana State v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023CRLP/15702/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused to quash a complaint. The Court observed that the petition was filed subsequent to a final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stating the case was rejected for lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was dismissed as infructuous for non-prosecution.

Gireesh Kumar Sanghi, Telangana State Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITIO NO: 15702 OF 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gireesh Kumar Sanghi, S/o Late Ram Sharan Sanghi, aged 55 Years, Occ C.M.D AGA Publications Ltd, office at 4-3-352, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. Rt/O Sanghi Nagar, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District, Telangana State

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad, (through SHO P.S., Sultan Bazar)

¶11

G. Jvlaheswar Reddy, Sio. G. Ram Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ Manager in Sanghi Spinners lndia Limited, Rio.H.No.3-64, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

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 call for the records relating to and in connection with CC No. 281 of 2013 in Crime No. 383/2010, on the file of the XXIV Special Metropolitan magistrate at Hyderabad, quash lhe same

¶14

l.A NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLPMP. NO: 16786 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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in CC.No. 281 of 2013 in Crime No. 383/2010, on the file of the XXIV Special Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above revision application

¶16

This Petilon coming on for hearing, upon perusing lre Vlemorandum of Grounds of^()riminal Petition and upon hearing lre arguments of Sri V Sai Kumar Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri^y'izara.h Ali, l\ssistant Public Prosecutor on rehalf of the Respondent No.1 ard none agrpeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

(

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.l57O2 of 2OL4

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner herein seeking to ca.ll for the records relating to and in connection with C.C.No.281 of 2O13 in Crime No.383 of 2010, on the file of the XXIV Special Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad and quash the same.

¶23

None appears for the petitioner. Even on the previous dates of hearing i.e., on 18.12.2014, 13.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 28.08.2023, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption 'For Dismissal', none appears for the petitioner.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that Crime No.383 of 2010 on the file of Sultan Bazar, Police Station has been registered on 19.10.2010 against the petitioner herein under Section 506 r/w 34 IPC. Thereafter, the matter has been carried before this Courl uide Criminal Petition No.10889 of 2010 and this Court has passed an order on O3.11.2O11, which reads as under:

¶25

¶26

" Lectrned Additional F\tblic Prose'cutot , t)n 'tr.structions states hat the final report is already -'il,zd^{before the} concernzd Court stating that the case is^reJ'etrect. for^{lack of} euidenc,:. As the JinaL report was^alreQclA -FiLed^under Section 173 Cr.P.(:., the^question of^{qutshir'g FIMO.383 of} 2O1O oJ Sultan Bazar Police^{Station,Hgd<'rrlbact, does not} aise at tl^ is stage.

¶27

ln the circunzstatrces, the crimirutl^pelitt.)n ':;^dimissed as hauir'.g become infructuous. "

¶28

Thereafler, the presertt Criminal Pelition has^{been filed} seeking this^(lourt's intervention stating that ort^lhe "rerl'^same FIR, charge sheet has been filed and num rered^{i,.s tl.C.No.281} of 2O 13 on th e fiie of the XXIV Special^{Me'-ropo il an Magistrate} at Hyderabad and quasl-r thc same.

¶29

Learned Assistant Public Proseclttor^{a pprlrrringfor} respondent-S ate is present.

¶30

Recordirrg the submissions made by the leat netl^Assistant Public Prosecltor and upon perusing the rnateriaI auailable^on

¶31

¶32

I
I

¶33

record, this Court is inclined to dismiss the criminal petition for

¶34

non-prosecution.

¶35

7 . Accordingly,. this criminal petition is dismissed for non-

¶36

prosecution

¶37

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶38

closed

¶39

Sd/. B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 . The ll^{Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrateat Nampally'Hydrabad}

¶44

The Station^{HouseOfficer, SultanBazar PoliceStation'Hyderabad}

¶45

One^{CC to SRI V Sai Kumar,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶46

Two CCs^{to the PublicProsecutor'High Court for the State of Telangana'} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶47

Two CD^CoPies

¶48

{o(

¶49

HIGH COURT DATED:01 ;0912023

¶50

ORDER

¶51

CRLP.No.1 5702 of 2014

¶52

a'. J
ac
(
a<br>

¶53

Dismissing the Criminal Petition for non pro:;ecution

¶54

\O\2
$\r

Gireesh Kumar Sanghi, Telangana State v. State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gireesh Kumar Sanghi, Telangana State 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

Yama Venkata Ramana, Nalgonda Town and District Vs Manchukonda Krishna Murthy, Nalgonda District and Anr, by Pp.

Puli Bheemanna Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and 2 Others

N.Ravi Kumar, Hyd Vs Public Prosecutor, Hyd and Another

Dr. T.P.Srinivasan, Vs Smt. v. Karuna, IAS

G.Venu Gopal Goud Vs The Slate of Teiangana

Smt. B.Sandhya, Moosapet, R.R.Dt., and Anr., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.