Dismissed

Chikkala Apoorva , Sankuri Apoorva v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC14 Mar 2023CRLP/66/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for an offence under Section 324 IPC, holding that prima facie charges exist and trial is necessary. Instead, the court dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, subject to specific conditions regarding representation and affidavit filing.

What did the court decide?

Personal attendance of the petitioner/accused in C.C.No. 7775 of 2022 was dispensed with on payment of the first fine and filing of an affidavit, subject to conditions including representation by coun

Chikkala Apoorva , Sankuri Apoorva Vs State of Telangana… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132511

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE^{FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶6

CRIMINAL^{PETITION NO: 66 OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chikkala Apoorva @^{SankuriApmrva, Wo.ChikkalaShanmukha Rao'aged} 26 years, Occ. Housewife,^{R/o.Q.No.MB-53,2nd Lane, Writer Basti,} Kothagudem, BhadradriKothagudemDistrict.

¶9

...pETrfloNER/AccusED

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,^{High Court Buildings,} Hyderabad. State of Telangana Rep. by its^{PublicProsecutor,High Court} Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

chikkata Shanmukha Rao, s/o.Vishwanadham, od^{1=nT"or|t?H]1?;1} 107512518, Flat No.104, Park Mew Residency, Shivam^Road, Occ. CA,^Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTNo.2/DEFACTO COMPLAI^NANT

¶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^proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused^{in C.C.No.} 7775 of 2022 on the file of lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at^Nampally, Hyderabad

¶15

l.A- NO: 1OF 2023

¶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 grant stay of all further^proceedings including^personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.7775 of 2022 on the file of^{lV Additional} Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad,^pending disposal of the above 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 B V^Rama Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent^No.2

¶18

The Court made the following: ORIIER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUR-ENDER

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION N0.66 0F 2023

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed unde r Sectio n 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, l9'/ 3 (for short 'Cr.^p.C. J by the petitioner/sole accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7775 of 2022 on the lile ol IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderzrbad. The offt:nccs aileged against her are under Section 324 of tl-rc [ndian Penal Code.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner ald learned Additional Public ProsccLrtor ll)r the respondent - State. Perused the record

¶24

In the charg.e sheet, pnntu facie, there are certain allegations Ieveled against the petitioncr^'lhey are triable issues. The petitioner has [o face trial anrl pr-ove her innocence. Therefore, this Court is not rnclirrcd to qlr:rsh proceedings in C.C.No.7775 of 2022 on the lile ol IV Adclitional Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampalty, Hyderabad, agair-rst thc l)etitioner.

¶25

Having regar.d to thc lacrs and circumstances of the case, the attendance of rlrc petitiorrcr/sr>lc accused is dispensed with, with the follou.ing t or.rditions

i) The attendance of the petitioner/sole accused is dispensed with in proceedings in C.C.No.7775 of 2O22 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, when represented by her counsel on record.

¶30

ii) The attendance of petitioner/sole accused is dispensed subject to filing an aJfidavit by her stating that in her absence the proceedings conducted by her counsel will not be disputed by her in any manner and shall not dispute her identity also.

¶31

iii) Hor.t,ever, thc petitioner/sole accused shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when her presence is required. In the event of the petitioner's failure to appear when the Court directs, this order dispensing her attendance shall stand cancelled.

¶32

Accordingl_r', the Criminal Petition is disposed off

¶33

Miscellancous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶34

closed

¶35

Sd/. G. SIRE HA ASSISTANT REGI RAR //TRUE COPY// sEcTto FFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

1 The lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad

¶38

2 The Station House Officer, Amberpet police Station, Malakpet Division 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶39

4 One CC to Sri B_ V. Rama Rao, Advocate [OpUC] 5 Two CD Copies plp '

HIGH COURT

KS,J

DATED:1410312023

ORDER

GRLP.No.66 ot2023

rJ :' i i\E S l4 ,,,
n 0
aJ [ 1 i'tAY ?08
, //
../,/.
I l.--1;,-.1,11- y,l-9--7:'
-.---=.=__;-

¶47

DISPOSING OFF THE CR!MINAL PETITION

Chikkala Apoorva , Sankuri Apoorva v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chikkala Apoorva , Sankuri Apoorva v. 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

M/s. B. R. Traders Vs State of Telangana and another

Chenna Vidyasagar Vs State of Telangana and 7 Others

V.Prabhakar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Vegesna Chaitanya Kumar , Vegeshna Chaitanya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri. Mogli Jagdish Kumar Vs Sri. G. Madhusudhan Reddy

Karike Srisailam Vs The State of Telangana