Disposed

N.Peddi Raju v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC21 Mar 2023CRLP/5763/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking dispensation from personal appearance in criminal proceedings. The petitioner was allowed to appear only if required; otherwise, a caveat was directed regarding default of appearance.

What did the court decide?

Dispensation of attendance with proviso for appearance if required; liberty to approach lower court for discharge.

N.Peddi Raju Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

t^32sl I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST OAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5763 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

N.Peddi Raju, S/o N. Challalu Aged about 55^years, Occ,Advocate, Ft/o.H.No.5-5475,65, B4lF3, LIG Bhagya Nagar colony MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PET]TIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, through Police Station Begum Bazar District Hyderabad City, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶13

Dr.Y.S.Ravi Kumar, S/o S. Yogender Age about 47^years occ. Doctor^Fyo H.No.^"l s-2 1 -7sl8, Balaji Nasar, Kukatpa,,133i[30.,tPrr,=.ro"o=rr.

¶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 call for the records relating to the complaint^{in C.C. No.768of 2016} on the file of the XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad^City for the alleged offence U/Sec. 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC and to^quash the^proceedings thereon

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶16

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 of all further^proceedings including appearance of^the petitioner in C.C. No.768 of 2016 on the file of the XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad City^pending disposal of the^Criminal Petition

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^M.ADAtt/, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor^(TG) on^behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri B.Raghavendra, Advocate for the^Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following. ORDER

¶19

¶20

¶21

THE H,(TNOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶22

CRIMINAL P ETITION No.5763 OF 2 22

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Crin' n,rl Petition is filed under Section 482 cf the Code of Criminal Proce: ure, 1973 (for short^'Cr.P.C.') by th:^{petitioner/A-l} to quash the^p, lsss6;.gs against him in C.C.No.768 of^{.2016, pending} on the file of l:arned XVII Additional Chief Metropoli':,ln Yagistrate, Hyderabad.

¶25

Heard l: arned counsel for the petitioner/A-l arrd learned Additional Publi : l)rosecutor for respondent No.1 - State:. F'erused the record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the^petitioner confined ris^prayer to dispense with : re personal appearance of^{petitioneriA.-}

¶27

Consider.nll the submission of learned counsel f()r th€'^petitioner;

¶28

the Criminal Pr: ,it on is disposed of with the follorving rlir:ctions:

¶29

i) the atte-dance of petitioner/A-1 in C.C.No.768 o'' 2016 pending on the file of earned XVII Additional Chief Metropclil,an Magistrate,

¶30

Hyderabad, is r ispensed with;

¶31

¶32

ii) the attendance of the^{petitioner is dispensedwith subject to} petitioner filing an amdavit^{stating that in his 'absence,the}

¶33

proceedings conducted by his counsel^{will not be disputed by him in} any manner and shall^{not dispute his identity also; and}

¶34

iii) however, the^{petitioner shall appear before the learned} Magistrate as and^{when his presenceis required.In the event of} failure of the^{petitioner to appear as and whenthe courtdirects, this}

¶35

order, dispensing^{his attendance, shall stand cancelled'}

¶36

5.Needlesstosay,thepetitionerisatlibertytofileanapplication seeking discharge^{before the Courtconcerned'Upon filingsuch} application, if the^{charges are not framed, the Court concernedshall} dispose the same^{on merits, within a period of four weeksfrom the}

¶37

date of filing, after^{hearrng arguments on both sides'}

¶38

Miscellaneous applications^{pending, if any, shall stand closed'}

¶39

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

Sd/-T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CD/^

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To '1 . The XVll Additional Chief tvetropolitan l/agistrate, at Hyderabad.

¶44

The Station House Officer, P.S. Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶45

One CC to Sri M.Adam, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to Sri B.Raghavendra, Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶48

Two CD Copies

) .)

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110312023

OROER

.: . .'--
a- :1..,
,, t. - t,i.'i'
/"( )(-
I
ir--' ,il li1 Y
?tn
\ r,.

¶56

CRLP.No.5763 ot 2(^,.2

¶57

CRL.P. IS DISPOSEI I oF.
a

¶58

¶59

N.Peddi Raju v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Peddi Raju 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

Janga Raghava Reddy Vs Thangellapally Sammaiah and Another

Sreenidhi Townships Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana and Another

G Surendar , Surender Amba Das Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Ibrahim Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Vuppala Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Mohd Abdul Rawoof , Mohammed Abdul Rauf, And 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another