Disposed

G.Laxmi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jul 2023CRLP/6644/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of Section 482 Cr.P.C petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. Court held that trial must continue on merits and refused to quash proceedings after charge sheet was filed. Dispensed with accused's appearance except for specific procedural events.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No.849 of 2023 were not quashed. Appearance of accused dispensed with generally.

G.Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

L^32s41

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TiREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

c RTMINAL P o NO 6 40F20 23

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 G.Laxmi, W/o. Late G.Narayana,. Age 62 years, Occ:House hold_ R/o. H. No. 5 - 1 1 - 6 2 2, yet ta m a g rtt", rri iru ri lUuil rir L'a"m a Ua O D istrict.

¶10

2 G.Prashanth, S/o. Late G.Narayana, Ag-e.35 years, Occ:Software Enoineer. R/o.H.No.5-11-622, yeilama6utta,'rvii"",""Ujji "'Nizamabad Djstrict. B:1: : #1, ti;5 il?",.," 3( 1., c u iin o rii r n6 "^{i,' 5ii pil s u n-ci ty-,-inii r#u il il;}

¶11

AND , J

¶12

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.2 and 3

¶13

The State of Telanoana_Rgp. Oy its public prosecutor, High Court at Byrff:?:"a,^{rhrough- sxo'F5,Wpstir' EIilioii)cyberabad, cyberabad}

¶14

Gilakara Archana. W/o. Gilakara pramod, age 31 years, Occ:Housewife. BL"JI?, No. 1 04, sorita iie^- epJrtri,-"ri,^",sEiiii",g; # p" ilvi il;fi " til;:,

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Section 4g2_ of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Groundi "rtr:ili"ir petition, the High court luv^{jupleasedto qriash theproceedingii"} i.c.iv".e+9 of 2023, on the fite ot the Court of the First Add-itionai'- junior Civil Judge_Cum_ IX Addl. Metropoliran Magistrate .t-ir[iip"flV, Cyberabad, against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3.

¶17

I .NO t2OF2(J23

¶18

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of trimin"al petiiion,lne;i;;;;;, may be pleased to orant :l"y_9f all further pioceeOings in C.C.No.849 ot 2023, dated -03-20i3 on.rhe fire or tne Lou.io?'the First Additionar lunior civir Judge-cum-Ix Addr. Metroporitan tut"d;t" at Kukatpary, Cyberabad ffilt,fl;: the appearance of the'accur"u tili ih"'oisposat of the Main euash

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing. upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Srushman Reddy, AdVocate for the Petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.6644 OF 2o23

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.p.C.J by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.g49 ol 2023 on the file of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and ,^{Sri S.Ganesh,learned AssistantPublic prosecutorfor respondent} No.1 - State. Perused the record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that only general allegations are made against petitioners / accused No.2 and 3. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against them.

¶28

On the other hand, learned Assistant Fublic prosecutor contended after due investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein. Therefore, it is not a ht case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture.

¶29

1"'

¶30

¶31

5 o' a pe.usar of.the charge sheet, this court is of the view that the truth or otheru.ise of the :Lllegatioi_rs rnade against the petitioners can be decide,l only after conrlr-rcting trial. I{ence, this Court is not inclined to interfere wrth the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶32

Tal<ing into consideration the fact that only general allegations are leveled against the petitionerS/ rrccused Nos.2 and 3, their appearance/ attendance before the learned I Additicna.l,Junior Civil Judge-cum_IX Adclitionat Metropolitarr ,Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cl,berabad in C.C.No.g49 of 2023 is dispensed wrth, unless tht:ir presence is required by the trial Court for a specific purposc or at the time of rr:cording their examinatitrn nnder Section 313 Cr.p.C. and on the date of pronouncement of judgmenr. Further, the petitioners are at liberty to hle an application seeking discharge and on such application being hled, the 1_rjal Court shall dispose of the same on merits u.ithout getting influenced by the observations made by this Court in the present order.

¶33

7 Accordingly, the Crimrnal petition is disposed of

¶34

¶35

¶36

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶37

closed

¶38

Sd/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGI R I IrRUE coPYl /

¶39

To,

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

The First Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

¶42

2' The station House officer (s.H.o), w.p.s.cachibowri, Cyberabad District.

¶43

One CC to SRI N. SRUSHMAN REDDY, Advocate [OpUC]

¶44

Two CC to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

Two CD copies.

STB

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:2l /Oz/2oZg

ORDER )

/.: ;.L S-IAIF r
cv 1..'t,( 1
<br>? B lt\l TM
.
','! tl''

¶52

CRLP.No.6644 of ZO2g

¶53

CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF.

¶54

1
-'-\ --b v

G.Laxmi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Laxmi 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

Naresh Mandapuram Vs The State of Telangna

Thouti Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. N. Mamatha Vs The State of Telangana

Katakam Bhaskara Chary Vs Dr. Poloju Shruthi

J. Abhishek Vs The State of Telangana

Somu Avinash Reddy Vs The State of Telangana