Partly allowed

Chakilam Jayaprakash and 3 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023CRLP/5152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. granting relief to dispense with the presence of three petitioners, including senior citizens, during trial proceedings and directing the trial court to decide the calendar case within three months.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners 1, 3, and 4 dispensed with unless required by trial court; infancy relief denied for petitioner no. 2; trial to be disposed within 3 months.

Chakilam Jayaprakash and 3 others Vs The State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^32s4 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5152 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chakilam Jayaprakash, Sio. Veeraiah, Age. 62 years, Occ. Business, Rio. H.No. 8-11-187, Pinnavaari Street, Warangal, Warangal Dislrict.

¶9

Chakilam Phani, S/o. Jayaprakash, Age.38 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o. H.No. 8-11-187, Pinnavaari Street, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶10

Jampala Rama Rao, S/o. Nagaiah, Age. 46 years, Occ. Business, F/o. H.No. 8-11-187 , Pinnavaari Street, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶11

4- Palakurty Nagaraju, S/o. Rajalingam, Age. 61 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 8-10-74, Bandalshetty street, Girmajip_et.Y,?Efig"J^8S,53?g,lB!:l.f1,

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana and another, Through SHO, P.S. Mills Colony, Warangal District Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad'

¶14

....RES'oNDENT/..M,LA'NANT

¶15

Kattamuri Trivikram, S/o. Venkateshwar Rao, Age. 51 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H.No. 1 2-5-1 631 1 n I 4O4, Suvarna Apartments, Ramannapet, Warangal, warangal District

¶16

...RES.oNDENT/DEFA.r. ..M'LATNANT

¶17

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 proceedings in C.C. No. 417 of 2016 on the file of the Honourable Judicial First Class Magistrate -cum -Prohibition and Excise Cases, Warangal against the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 io 4 in the interest of justice and to^pass

¶18

l.A NO:2 OF 2022

¶19

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 grant interim stay of all further Oroceedings including appearance of the petitioners/accused No. 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 417 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum -the interest of justice pending disposal of the criminal petition

¶20

This^Det ti,r l coring orr for hearing, upon^perL sinc lre Momori)ndum of Grounds of Crirrir al Petition and upon hearrng the arg lment l^rf Sr S.^liurender Reddy, Advccate fo- tne Petitioner and the Public Prtsecr or on beh:,i f of the Respondent No I and of Respondent No. 2 not atperarr'r1 in^persr:,n or by Advocate.

¶21

The Court made tl re following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5152 OF 2o22

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition is ftled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.J by the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.417 of 2016 pending on lhe hle of [e arned Judicial First Class Magistrate-cumProhibition and Excisc Cases, Warangal, registered for the offences under Section s 447 , 427 and 5O6 reaci with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

¶28

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged incidents took place on O3.06.2O16 and 06.06.2016, but, the complaint was lodged on O8.06.2O16, which is as an afterthought and with due deliberation and that the matter is civil in nature. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners No.1 and 4 are senior citizens. Therefore, he prays this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioners No.1 and 4.

¶29

4 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that calendar case is of the year 2016, trial has been

¶30

¶31

corlrnrcr('( :l ir^, I⁽ ,idcnce lrzrs to bc adduccd bcft:r-- tlrc rr:lLl^(lourl Thcrcibrc, it i:;^.,'rt a fil czrs,:r to bc- quashecl

¶32

.5 ();r :r pt r.rs:rl ol' tlri chargc shect, this C ourt s o[ Lhc lrct Lhirt trullr or'⁽⁾¹ rr'r-,. 1 rc ol'thc allr:gatiot-ts made agains i tlr(r [) iiLi()r)cr^s t::tn ltc dccirli d orLIr att r condlrct ng tr-ral. I{cnct:, Lhis^(lourt :'rol it.t ltned lo intcrh:rr: rr,rth th' l)roccedinlls against the pctitior.ers

¶33

Ta[inq :Lrto considr:ration Lhe aforesaid subntiss;ions, th,s Court decnrs it,:ll)pro[) ir te to dispcnse u,ith the appearanr:(/.rl1e r(lart(. ol tl)c petitior-rr-'rs,'ir<: :u;ccl Nos.1,3 and 4 in C.C.No.4 17 ol ?.'.) I6 perding on the f ilc of lc:rrrrt,l .Judicial t'irst Class Magistratc-t'urr^Prohjbition and Excise Cases, Vr ar angal, unless their presence is rerq rt^-t:d bv hi: trial Cour'( for' :t spcr:i ir: purposc or at the time of recot dinel -l- -:Lr t'xantitratiot.t undcr Sectior: i I 3 Cr.P.C). and on the date of p o rotltrce rrcnt ol judgmenr. \o s; tr:h relief is giv<:n so far as pcti.ione'r/r ccttsed No.2 is concr:rncd. Fur rcr, the trial Court is directed to lisp,tr;c of -he c,,tlcndar casc .1s cxpcclil : rLtsh, as possible within a period rrf irLrr Oz1) lonths from the da tc ol er:eipt of copv of this order.

¶34

Accorr ir: gl 7, the Crrminal Petition is dispr,sed oI

¶35

MiscellaneolLs rl plicaLiorjs pending, if any, sl'rall s:anrl clost:d

¶36

Sd/. K. AMMAJI

¶37

ASSISIA,T{t REGrSTRAR

¶38

//TRUE COPY// (---'l) SE,:)TI()N OFFICER

¶39

To, 1 The Judici:rl F irst Class Magistrate - cum - Prohibition and E;<cis: Cases, Warangal

¶40

2 The Statior H ruse Officer, P. S. Mills Colony, Warargal f,ris trict. 3 One CC to S' S Surender Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

1. Two CC)s to tt e^rublic Prosecutor, High Court for th€ Stata ol Tellngana. [our] Two Ctr Cc,pi,^,s

¶42

6(kr',reB

¶43

HrGr-l couRT

¶44

DlrTEt): 21i10612023

¶45

=€
/ (r
/
J m
,rlil o
\ /
ORDER

¶46

CRLP.No.5'15"2^{of 2022}

¶47

I)ISPOSING OF THE^{CRIMINI[-F'ETITION}

¶48

WITHCIU.I COSTS

¶49

@svtlryoqtt't

Chakilam Jayaprakash and 3 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakilam Jayaprakash and 3 others v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Chettikindi Ashok and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mohd. Khan and 9 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Pallerla Achinthya and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri. Bokka Srikanth Reddy and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Toom Venkateswara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Md. Jafar Vs Md. Lal Mohamad