Disposed

Chand Shaik Yasin v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Nov 2023CRLP/5262/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised powers under Section 482 CrPC to partially dispose of a criminal petition seeking quashment of proceedings. The court refused to quash on merits but dispensed with the accused's mandatory attendance for a specific hearing, subject to affidavit and a warning to attend if summoned.

What did the court decide?

Dispensed from attendance with specific conditions; proceedings not quashed; petition otherwise disposed.

Chand Shaik Yasin Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5262 OF 2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Chand Shaik Yasin, R:/o. H.no. lV-2-6, Krishna Nagar, Madanapalll Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶10

Seelamsetti Nagaraju, R/o. H.No.9-115-17€, Easwaramma Colony, Madanapalll Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶11

Tatiparthi Gopi, Rl/o. H.No. 4-88-E7, Chalapathi Rao Colony, Madanapalli, Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶12

K.Uma Devi@Uma Rani, R"/o. H.No. 7-44, Singamvaripalli, Ramasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶13

Pasupuleti Reddamma, R:/o. Madanapalli town and Mandal, Chittoor District. ...PET|TTONERS/ACCUSED NO. 3,4,6,8 & 11

¶14

AND

¶15

State Of Telangana, Rep. by its^{public prosecutor,} High court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of A.P.

¶16

Ye.?,mala Nagarjuna Reddy, Rl/o. Narayanapuram Village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District^(LW-1 ).

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶18

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 CC.No.13'17 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira, Khammam District.

¶19

1.A NO: zOF 20'18

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petitbn,theHigh} Court^may be pleased To stay all further proceedings including APPEARANCE the petitioners herein in CC.No1317 ot 2O17 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira , Khammam District^pending disposal of the criminal^petitbn.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR ,Advocate for the petitioner and the pubtic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and NONE for the Respondent No. 2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5262 OF 201E

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

¶27

Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) by the petitioners/ Accused No.3, 4, 6, 8 & 11 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1377 ol2O17 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, registered for the offences under Sections 420 r/w 120-8 of Indian Penal Code and sections 19(a) and 21 of Seeds Act,7966.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and harned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and Perused^{the record.}

¶29

The petition is filed seeking to quash thc proceedings against the petitioners/accused, who is arrayeci as Accused Nos.3, 4, 6, 8 & 11 for the offences under Scctions 420 IPC r/w 120-8 of Indian Penal Code and sections 19(a) ancl 21 of Seeds Act, 1966

¶30

This complaint was filetl on the basis of the statement of the

¶31

farmers stating that these pc'titioners along with others have induced

¶32

¶33

the farmers into buying spurious seeds. The said seeds were

¶34

purchased, resulting in heavy losses to the farmers.

¶35

L,earned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are controller in AI,SRTC and it cannot be said that they have anything to do with inducing of the other accused for selling seeds.

¶36

The case is circumstantial in nature and when it is specifically stated by the farmers that these petitioners were also one of the persons. who had gone to the village and induced the farmers to buy spurious seeds, this Court under Section 482 Cr.p.C cannot decide the defence of the petitioners that they were not present along with the other accused. Nor the defence taken by the petitioners that they were only a partner and they have nothing to do with the affairs of the selling seeds. AII the said aspects of the defence can be agitated before the trail Court.

¶37

The attendance of the petitioners- Accusecl Nos.3, 4, 6, g & l l are dispensed with subject to filing an affidavit by the petitioners stating that in their absence, the proceedings cond ucted by their

¶38

¶39

counsel will not be disputed by^{them in any manner and shall not} dispute their identity also. However,^{the petitioners-AccusedNos.3,} 4, 5, 6,8 & 11 shall appear before the learned^{Magistrateas and when} their presence is required. In the event of^{failure of the} Petitioners^to appear when the Court directs, this order^{dispensing with their} attendance shall stand cancelled.

¶40

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition^{is disposed off. Needlessto} say, in the event of the petitioners filing^{an applicationseeking} discharge iI charges are not^{framed, the concernedCourtshall} dispose it of on merits within a period^{of four ((X) weeks}

¶41

Miscellaneous applications pending,^{if any, shall standclosed.}

SD//. V. HARI P D

ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION O ICER

To,

The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madira, Khammam Oistrict. 2. One CC to SRl. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to The PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court^for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

Two CD Copies

-}--

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2011112023

ORDER

GRLP.No.5262 ot 2018

1 t\e s TA r€'
q
o 1 I J A N 102I
*
+
D ,-- .\i'

¶57

D!SPSOING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶58

) ,q

Chand Shaik Yasin v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Shaik Yasin v. 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

Bandaru Govardhan and 2 others Vs State of Telangana and another

Shoukath Banu Vs The State of Telangana

Dommati Raj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Jameel Sheik Vs State of Telangana

Chand Shaik Yasin Vs State of Telangana

Chand Shaik Yasin Vs the State of Telangana