Dismissed

Panjala Rajeshwari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Jan 2023CRLP/6104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed to quash proceedings under Section 398(A) IPC. Court refused quash due to prima facie triable issues. Dispensed attendance of petitioners against condition of affidavit and appearance when required, in Closed Misc. A.P.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashment dismissed. Attendance of petitioners dispensed with subject to filing affidavit and appearing when required by the Magistrate.

Panjala Rajeshwari Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6104 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Panjala Rajeshwari, Wo Sathyanarayana Goud

¶9

Paryala Sathyanarayana Goud, S/o late Narsaiah Goud

¶10

Panjala Kalyan, S/o Sathyanarayana Goud

¶11

Panjala Sai Bhavani Goud, D/o Sathyanarayana Goud

¶12

Panjala veda @ Bharath Neha, W/o Kalyan

¶13

...PETITIONERSiACCUSED 2 to 6

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

Bommela Rajitha @ varnika, D/o Narayana, age 24yrs, Caste. Munnuru kapu, Occ. House wife, Rl/o Bhatpalli Village of Kaghaznagar lrilandal.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶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. 454 of 2022 on the file the Honble Judicial first Class Magistrate at Sirpur - T, against the petition ers/Accused 2 to 6.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶20

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 all further proceedings in CC No.454 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial first Class Magistrate at Sirpur-T against the petitioners/Accused 2 to 6 pending disposal of the Crl.P.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KOMIRE SAI AKARSH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.61O4 OF 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {for short 'Cr.P.C.J by the petitionersAccused Nos.2 to 6 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.454 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial first Class Magistrate at Sirpur-T. The offence alleged against the Accused is under Section a9B(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

Heard learned counsel lor the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor lor the respondent - State. Perused the record.

¶28

In the charge sheet, pima facie, there are certain allegations leveled against the petitioners herein. They are triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. The defences taken by the petitioners cannot be considered ln an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.454 of 2022 pending on the lile of Judicial first Class Magistrate at Sirpur-T, against the petitioners herein.

¶29

¶30

¶31

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of^{-the case,} this Criminal Petitjon is disposed off with the following directions

¶32

i) The attendance of the petitionerslA2 to 4.6 is dispensed with in C.C.No.454 of 2022 pending on the file of Judicial first Class Magistrate at Sirpur-T, when represented by their counsel on record.

¶33

ii) The attendance of the petitioners is dispensed subject to filing an affidavit by the petitioners stating that in their absence the proceedings conducted b1, their counsel will not be disputed by them in any manner and shall not dispute their identity also. iii) However, the petitioners shall appear 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.

¶34

Miscellaneor-rs applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

To,

Sd/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE^COPY// t li.; SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

I Il E tlXrl,?]^{t[:L:5'"'#31'ffi3)fl if,',lil tr,.e statio n' Ku ma rambh eem}

¶40

Asifabad.

¶41

S. ?ijliCC;^{ro the pubtic prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶42

- d'r""'ctiJ^s.-ni koutnr^{sAl AKARSHAdvocate [oPUC]}

¶43

Two CD^CoPies

VII

\ " PI

HIGH COURT

DATED:^1910112023

ORDER

CRLP.No.6104 of²⁰²²

Tr{E s
t
)
,I
o 2 1 FEB ?023 !l
* -1'
i'

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶52

Panjala Rajeshwari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panjala Rajeshwari v. The 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

Syed Jaffar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Md.Ghouse , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Manusaran Reddy Vs Smt. Battu Vasantha

Tholem Sambaiah Vs the State of A.P. and 54 Others

Gunti Revathi Vs The State of Telangana and another

Chine Balakrishna Vs The State of Telangana