Dismissed

M.v.Sambasiva Rao v. the State of Ap., Rep Byits P.P and Anothers

Telangana HC15 Feb 2023CRLP/2488/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the matter as devoid of merits due to the petitioner's non-appearance, lack of representation, and the existence of prima facie material in the record.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed as devoid of merits; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

M.v.Sambasiva Rao Vs the State of Ap., Rep Byits P.P and… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s4 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2488 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

M V.SAMBASIVA RAO, S/o late Veera Raghavaiah, aged 67 -years, r/o plot NO.C-30, Kranthi Sikhara Apartments, Punjagutta, Hydeiabad.

¶9

...PETITIONERYAGCUSED No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of A.P Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Ap Hyderabad 2. Sri Poona Srinivas, S/o P.Darshan, Aged 30 years, Shankeshwar Bazar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶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 toto Quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1020 of 2013 on the file oi the Hon'ble Vll Metropolitan tvlagistrate at Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, and pass such other order or orders as or deemed fitlnd proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶14

.A. NO:2 F 201 CRLPMP. NO:2221 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 CC.No.102O of 2013 on the file oithe Hon'ble Vll Metropolitan tvlagistrate at Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District including appearance, pending disposat of the Criminal petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Giounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K SRINIVAS Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Pubtic^prosecutor for the state of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I I

¶19

THE HOI(r 8LE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKR,\VtrRTHy IRIMINAL PETITION No.2488 of 201,r

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

l ris , r'rmjnal petition is filecl seck,ng t,) cll.l1:,lt Lhc procr't'r1ir,rs n C.C No.1020 of 2Ol3 on thc lilc ()t l('arned VII NIcrt lopr lit:rn lv,lag,istrate, at Hayatnirgerr, Ranorr I.lccrl,. I) srrir:L

¶22

). O r 1:rer -rsal o[ the rccord it is evidr:nt 1 titr l]. lrrrl,_,r' riared I1 O:1.2 )1..-. .re tresence of thc petitioncr srrs rii;:,.:nstcl uith ('(rcpL cll Lh: lat(:s w'hen his prcsence rs spt,t ific all, t.r'c1 rirecl ItV tlre^{(l,tu -L} l,c[ rq'.^'lhere is no sta. in this rnartt r.

¶23

On l:\ )')..2023, there rvas no rcpr(.icr ta rr.rr ftrr thc 1;r:LiLic,nt^{rrtn I rhis mattcr u/as listerl urrdcr} lltt,^r::t1tL,rrn htr rltsrr.riss; " r-r I tr)day. Inspite ol iL lhc.rc is n,r 'r'1,r, ,- rr-.1 r )i^-ur rlri' l;r'trt o r::r' :riLhrlr in thc Ibr-enOon or irr lltC irlt(.-tL( o)l

¶24

I'h, l::r .rcd Assistant Pul;Lic Proscculcr' ()n illsLr rctlons rt crtrlrl s L[rnrr ',hrlt hc has fi]cd c C'(lurt ( t s( i]irtus '.r. ltr,:l-t rlrsclost s tlrat inspite of having n() stitv rn tl-rs cii i: tl r' ( irsc rrrljr Lrr-Lr- r srnce 24.O1.2O 18 trrrcltr rlrl t:r1;ri rrr 5t,L' lf ur-t Irtr lt t.. )l-)2.2O'./3, lhc Clrtrrrt l-lt,lorr lr rs t;s-ttcl NLJVis . r qrr irrs tlrr' 1tc it:onc:r

¶25

I I

¶26

¶27

On^{perusalof the record'tt ts evidcnt Lhat the case was} hled against^{the accusedfor the offencespunishableunder} sections^{42O and, 406 oft P Cand during the courseol} investigation,^{accused No lhas got antrc ipatorybail from the} Additional^{MetropotitanSessionsJudgc' Cvberabad'whereas} accused Nos.2^{and 3 have obtaineclanticipatory bail fromthis} Court.

¶28

The record^{disclosesPnrnctfac:ie material to procced with} thecase.Neitherthepetitionernorhiscoutrselisrepresenting the matter.

¶29

7 The criminal^{petitioll is accorclir.rglrdismisscdas devoidof}

¶30

merits.

¶31

Pending^{miscellanctlt-tsitppll(:ltiolls rl:rnr" shall stand}

¶32

closed

¶33

SD/. MOHO. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// @

¶34

SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To, 1 . The Vll Metropolitan^{Magistrateat Cyberabadat R'R District} i, iii,, dc" iJ^{tti" Cublic Pioiecutor,H'ighcourtfor the Stateof Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶36

3 oh.-cb to^{'snt (. sntrutvnSAdvocate[oPUC]} 4 Two CD CoPies

¶37

KKS Eh.

I l i i nI! I

HIGH COU TT

DATED:1 51 1212023

ORDER

,f 'i: :i '- i: s l-1,1' { o
,r... ).
/',j
ii., ? il1tlY 2[n rl'tl
\-. i ...
' ',/
..

¶43

CRLP.No.2,.88 of 2014

¶44

DISMISSIN( OF THE CRLP

¶45

hch,clste,

M.v.Sambasiva Rao v. the State of Ap., Rep Byits P.P and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Sambasiva Rao v. the State of Ap., Rep Byits P.P and Anothers

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

Bhonagiri Dilip, Adilabad Dt., Vs State, Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Mr.v.Ramesh Raju Vs State of Ap., and Another

Zaheer Ahmed Khan and 6 Others Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

R.Rajeshwar Reddy and Another Vs State of Ap.

Ifthekar Alam Vs The State of Telangana

Venugopal Innani, Hyd and 2 Othrs Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano