Disposed

Binaboina Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jun 2023CRLP/4908/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed by 12 accused persons to quash proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that presence of accused Nos. 2 to 12 can be dispensed with except during charge framing and examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Permission to dispense with presence of petitioners accused Nos. 2 to 12 before trial court except during framing of charges and Section 313 examination.

Binaboina Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4908 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Binaboina Krishna, S/o B. Mallaiah, Aged about^{33 years, Caste- Yadav, Occ-} Business Rl/o Room No.556, BPT Railway, Gate^{No.4,Wadala East, Mumbai,} Maharashtra State,

¶9

2 Binaboina Somamma, Wo Mallaiah, Occ -^{House wife,Aged 50 years, Caste-} Yadav, Rl/o Room No.556, BPT Railway, Gate No.4,^{Wadala East,Mumbai,} Mharashka State.

¶10

Binaboina Mallaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Aged- 65^{years, Caste- Yadav,Occ -} Agriculture, Rl/o Room No.556, BPT Railway, Gate^{No.4, Wadala East,} Mumbai, Mharashtra State.

¶11

4 Vemula Padma, Wo Vemula Shravan Rao, Aged 34^years, Occ-^Housewife, Caste- Yadva, Rl/o Plot No.2, Nagam Peddaram^{Reddy Enclave,} Ragannaguda, Thurka Yamjal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶12

,5 Vemula Shravan Kumar @ Santosh, S/o Narayan Rao, Aged^{34 years, Occ-} Pvt- Job, Caste- Velma, Rl/o Plot No.2, Nagam Peddaram^{Reddy Enclave,} Raqannaguda, Thurka Yamjal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

tl Ela-gaboina Anjaiah, S/o Aliaiah, Aged 42^years, Occ-^{Advertisingin Media} Consultancy, Caste- Yadav, R./o H.No.1-10-387/48/E, Lane^No.11, Ivlathajinagar, Begumpet Brahmana Wadi, Hyderabad.

¶14

Elagaboina Sathayanrayana, S/o Ailaiah, Aged 36^{years, Occ- PytJoQ,} Casle- Yadav, R/o Room No.551, Gate No.4,^Antophil, Wadala^{East, Mumbai.}

¶15

Elagaboina Manjula, Wo Anajaiah, Aged about 32^years, Occ-^Housewife Yadav, R/o H.No-'l-1 0-387/48/E, Lane No.1¹ , Mathajinagar,^Begumpet Brahmana Wadi, Hyderabad.

¶16

Elagaboina Bhagyi Lakshmi, W/o Sathyanarayana,^{Aged28 year9,. Oc9-} Housewife, Caste- Yadav, R/o Room No.551, Gate No.4, Antophil,^Wadala East, Mumbai.

¶17

Pulicherla Rama Lingaiah, S/o. Sathaiah , Aged 42^years, Occ-^{Pvt. Job,} Caste- Yadav, R/o Robm No.551, Gate^{No.4, Antophil,WadalaEast, Mumbai.}

¶18

1'1. Pulicherla Chandrakala, Wo Rama Lingaiah, Aged^{38 years, Occ- Housewife,} Caste- Yadav, R/o Room No.55'1, Gate No.4, Antophil, Wadala^{East, Mumbai.}

¶19

Pulicherla Shekar, S/o Rama Lingaiah, Aged 20^years, Occ- Fvt Job,^Caste- Yadav, Rl/o Room No.551, Gate No.4, Antophil, Wadala^{East, Mumbai.}

¶20

... PETITIONER/A1 to A1 2

¶21

AND

¶22

¶23

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public^Prosecutor, Through^Saroornagar Women Police Station, High Court of Judicature at^{Hyderabad, For} the^State of relangana

¶24

... RESPoNDENT

¶25

Smt. Binaboina Vani @ Sravanthi, Wo B. Krishna, aged 29 years, CasteYadav, Occ- Housewife R/o Road No.2, Near Mahalaxmi T6mple, pavangiri Colony, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶26

...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶27

Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in .the circumstances stated in the l\4emorandum of grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in charge sheet vide CCNo. 3401 of ZO21 on the file of the V Additional lvletropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar .The Offences u/sec 498-,4, 406, 323, 506 of lndian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

¶28

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶29

FHition 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 in Charge Sheet Charge Sheet vide C.C.No.340'1 of 2021 on the fite of the V Addt. tvletropolitan [r/agistrate, Cybeiabad at L.B. Nagar, for the offences U/Sec.498-A, 406, 323,506 of lpC and Sec.3 and 4 of D P. Act

¶30

lhis Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri RApOLU BHASKAR, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri S.GANESH, Asst. public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

I I

¶33

¶34

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY Criminal Petition No.49O8 of 2o23

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Crimina.l petition is fited under Secrio n 4g2 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short .Cr.p.C.) by the petitioners-Accused No. 1 to 12 to quash the proceedings against them in CC No.34O1 of 2O2l on the hle of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishabje under Sections 4gg_A,406, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 ol Dowry prohibition Act

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S Ganesh, the learned Assistant public prosecutor.

¶38

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that not only the husband of the second respondent, but a,lso ail 0thers, who are rerated to the first petitioner, are falsely implicated in this case and most of them are residing in another state i.e., in Maharashtra. Learned counsel submits that the peititioners will give an undertaking that they shalr present before the triar court

¶39

¶40

as and^{lvhen required' l'herefore'the petitionersare} seeking^{pcrntissionto dispenservith their presence before} the tri^{al Co urt}

¶41

Taking into^{consideration that the main aliegations} are against^{A.1 alone ancl general allegationsare made} against other^{petitionersitt the chalge sheet'this Court is} of the^{consideredvierv that the presence of petitioner Nos'2} tc'r 12,^{t:xccptfrrst. petitioner/A' 1 can be dispensedwith'} However,^{Ll-t,.:,.- shall be present before the trial Court at the} time of^{lizLmingofcharges and examinationu/ s'313} Cr.P.C. and^{also as anci rvhen the trial Courtinsists fo:} their Prescnct:^.

¶42

With the^{zrbove otrservation, the CriminaiPetition is} disposed^{r,rff.No costs}

¶43

Miscelianeorrs^{apptcationspending' ifany' sha1l}

¶44

stand^closed

¶45

SD/. B, CHANDRA^PRAK ASH ASSISTANT^REGIST RAR qp

¶46

,TRUE^COPY//

¶47

SECTiCiN^OFFICER

¶48

To, 1. The V Addit'onal^{Metrlpolitan magistrate' Cyberabad at LB Nagar'} i. +;; be;i;^{puoti" p,bt""ii"i} 'riidntoi"tior^{the Stateof relansana'at} Hvderabad[OUT]

¶49

3 Tt;"SA1L;^{Houle officer,Police Station,Saroornagar, WomenPolice} Station

¶50

+.^-Cjne CC to^{SRl. RAPOLU BHASKARAdvocate[OPUC]}

¶51

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810612023

ORDER

CRLP.No.4908 of 2023

::--.
< ::il'i
ti- r<br>/ .:.;
i-) NB i'))
ii.i 11 $\t
l, rJ
',i..-:. -',.;i/
'i.

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

I
tots \r)
w (-

Binaboina Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binaboina Krishna v. The State of Telangana

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

Muduganti Srinivas Reddy Vs Kotha Venkata Rao and Another

A.Nagarjuna Vs StateState of Telangana

Pokala Shivudu , Shiva Vs The State of Telangana

Sri NimmagaddaDarahasaLahari Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.M.Radha Rani and Another Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Gaddam Ashok Kumar Vs State of Telangana