Dismissed

Prof. Venkateswarulu Peesapati,Hyd and Another v. Public Prosecutor ,Hyd and Another

Telangana HC9 Nov 2023CRLP/5875/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed filing a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings. The court held the petition infructuous as the cause did not survive since the petitioners were not genuinely accused in the cognizable proceedings. One related stay petition was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed as infructuous because the cause does not survive. Stay petition also dismissed.

Prof. Venkateswarulu Peesapati,Hyd and Another Vs Public… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5875 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

PROF. VENKATESWARULU PEESAPATI, S/o. Pala Sankaramurthy, lndependent Director, 12-13-67311 , Nagarjuna Ngr,ST-20, Tarnka, Hyderbad - 500 017.

¶9

P. Venkataratnam, lndependent Director, M/S ViViMed Labs Limited Elmote Estate, IDA Nacharam, Hyderabad-500076

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACGUSEDS No.1 0

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Hyderabad

¶13

M/S Deepak Nitrates Ltd, Having its Registered office at 9/10,Kunj Society, Alkapuri, Vadod ARA having its local office at Plot No 22 lDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad Rep by its authorized signatory J'Lakshmi Ganapathi

¶14

...RESpoNDENTs/coM,LATNANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to and the reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing the petitioners herein pray that this Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No 43/2015 on the file of ll Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram Cyberabad as otherwise the petitioner will suffer loss and injury.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(CRLPMP. NO:5830 OF 2015 )

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of CI.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners, who is the 10th and 11th accused in C.C.No 4312015 on the file of ll special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram Cyberabad

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ravi Sastri representing Sri SUBRAHMANYAM KURELLA, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri S. Ganesh, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, appears for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I I

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5875 OF 2Ol5

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2Ol5 on the frle of the learned II Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram, Cyberabad.

¶25

No representation on behalf of the unofficial respondent.

¶26

Heard Sri Ravi Sastri representing Sri Subrahmanyam Kurella, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondentState.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the cause in this criminal petition does not survive and hence, no further orders are required in the criminal petition. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the criminal petition as infructuous.

¶28

l,earned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State takes no objection to the same.

¶29

¶30

Recording the submissions made by both the^learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dismiss the^{present criminal}

¶31

petition as infructuous.

¶32

7 . Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed^as infructuous.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, sha-Il stand closed

¶34

/ITRUE COPY//

¶35

SD/- V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT RE\ISTRAR tr

¶36

SECTION dFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

1 The ll Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram Cyberabad

¶39

I The Station House Ofiicer, Nacharam Police Station, Hyderabad. J One CC to Sri Subrahmanyam Kurella, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) 5 Two CD Copies 6 . Qlg-cc-to SRI Sui6iva, Rao Dr.rh^:a1 Ad^/eaft, foe"l BJLB/JAK

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/11/2023

ORDER

1t{ E STAIe
(
a
I
I
2 7 JAll 2021
*
OF.seerct'-j

¶46

CRLP.No.5875 ot2015

¶47

GRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS @*sftr

Prof. Venkateswarulu Peesapati,Hyd and Another v. Public Prosecutor ,Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof. Venkateswarulu Peesapati,Hyd and Another v. Public Prosecutor ,Hyd 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

Koka Narasimha, Hyd and 6 Othrs Vs G. Jayasimha, Hyd and 5 Othrs

Karnati Mohan Reddy and Another Vs the State of Telangana and 2 Others

V.Seenaiah, Hyd., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Padma Priya Shabada, Usa and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Votukuri Yadagiri, Nalgonda., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Kandula ,Batthula Padmanjali, Hyd and 2 Otrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.