Dismissed

K.v.Sreenivasa Rao (A-1) and another v. State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023CRLP/5172/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings alleging cheating. However, it directed that the petitioners' physical attendance before the trial court be dispensed with, conditioned on filing an affidavit and appearing whenever directed.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash dismissed; attendance of petitioners in trial court dispens ed with subject to affidavit and future appearance.

K.v.Sreenivasa Rao (A-1) and another Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA ' AT HYOERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5'172 oF 2018

¶5

Between:

¶6

Kolluri'Verendra Sreenivasa Rao^(A-1), S/o Veerabhadra^{Rao,Aged 47 years} Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.16-3-61 , Sharaf Bazar,^{Tenali Town and Mandal,} Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State

¶7

Kolluri Veera Venkata Satya Prasad^{(A-2), R/o. H.No.16-3-61} ,^{Sharaf Bazar,} Tenali Town and Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶8

...Petitioners/A-1 and A-2

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana , rep. by the Public Prosecutor,^High Court^{for the} State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶11

The Sub-lnspector of Police,, Police station^{lll Town, Kothagudem, MG.Road,} Kothagudem Town, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

¶12

Mudurukalla Ramadevi Keerthana,Wio Venugopal, aged^{40 Years, House} Wife, Ri/o.H. No .7 -2-'l 1, Medanabasthi,^{Kothagudem town,Bhadradri-} Kothagudem District.^(Defacto complainant)

¶13

..Respondents/Complainants

¶14

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 charge sheet proceedings dated 10-09-2015 in CC.No.319 of 2016 for the offences under section 420^{readwith section34 of IPC against} petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 pending on the file of the Honourable lll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,^Kothagudem.

¶15

r.A. NO: 10F20{8

¶16

Petition under Section 482 ol^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may be} pleased to stay of all further proceedrngs including^personal appearance of the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 in CC.No. 319 of 2016 on the file of the Honourable lll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of^{First Class, Kothagudem,}

¶17

This Petition coming on^for hearing,^{upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and^{upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri S Madan} Mohan Rao ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{PublicProsecutor for the Stateof} Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1^{and NoneAppearedfor the} Respondent No. 2 and Sri Kowturi Pavan kumar^{Advocate on behalf of respondent} No.3

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.STIRENDER

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITIOl{ No. 5 L72 0F 2ota

¶21

ORDE R:

¶22

This criminar petition is filed under Sectio n 4g2 0f the code of Criminal Frocedure, 1973 (for short Cr.p.C.J by the petitioners/Al & A2, to quash the charge sheet in cc.No.3r9 of 2016 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections punishable under Section 42O r/w.34 of the Indian penal Code.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public prosecutor for the respondent _ State Perused the record.

¶24

In the charge sheet, prima facie, there are certain allegations Ieveled against the petitioners herein. They are triable issues. The petitioners have to face triar and prove their innocence. The defence taken by the petitioners cannot be considered in an apprication filed under Section 482 Cr.p.C. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings cc.No.319 of 2016 on rhe fire of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, against the petitioners herein.

I \

! t

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the attendance of the petitioners before the Court below is dispensed with subject to following directions:

¶29

i) The attendance of the petitioners/Al & A2 is dispensed with in CC.No.319 of 2016 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, when represented by his counsel on record.

¶30

ii) The attendance of the petitioners/Al & A2 is dispensed subject to filing an affrdavit by the petitioners stating that in their absence the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be disputed by them in aly manner and shall not dispute their identity also.

¶31

iii) However, the petitioners shall appea,r before the learned Magistrate as and when their presence is required. In the event of the petitioners' failure to appear when the Court directs, this order dispensing their attendance shall stand cancelled.

¶32

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition ls disposed off.

¶33

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶34

SD/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANTqEGP'RAR w //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

The lll Additional Judicial^{Magistrateof Frrstclass at Kothagudem. Presently} Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶37

The Station House Officer,Kothaqudem^{Police Station , Khammam District.}

¶38

One CC to Sri S.^{Madan Mohan Rao Advocale} IOPUCI

¶39

4- One CC to Sri kowturu^{Pavan kumarAdvocate (OPUC)}

¶40

Two CCs to Sri^{Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana} [OUT]

¶41

Two CD Copies

At-sx ARYJAK

HIGH COURT

DATED:O711112O23

ORDER

CRLP.No.5172 ot 2018

e
{

O) s
u lrlo
.a-qt
o
d,ot! a<br>
c H o

¶48

Criminal Petition is Disposed off

¶49

)s \r\kl*

K.v.Sreenivasa Rao (A-1) and another v. State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Sreenivasa Rao (A-1) and another v. State of Telangana and 2 others

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

Thirumanashetti Subba Rao, Karimnagar Dist. Vs the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

Akela Uday shankar Vs The State of telangana and another

M Swapna Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mohammed Saleem Jalna Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. J. Saleem @ Mohammed Saleem Jalna Vs The State of Telangana

Yerra Srinivasa Raju Vs The State of Telagana