Dismissed

Vinirramaa Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Telangana HC12 Jul 2023CRLP/6944/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by Vinirramaa Projects Pvt Ltd to call for records in connection with C.C.No.307 of 2013. The court dismissed it as infructuous because the underlying proceeding was already disposed of, rendering further representation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous without costs due to disposal of subject matter in lower court.

Vinirramaa Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd Vs P.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

{ I I i I

¶2

[^32ee ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6944 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vinirramaa Projects Pvt- Ltd., rep by its Authorised Signatory, Katari Venkata Rayapa Raju, R/o.H.No.8-2-269-5-61, First Floor, Sagar Society, Road No-2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034 Telangana State, India.

¶10

.....PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

....RESPONDENT

¶14

It4/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Rep by its, Location Collection Nlanager, Ir,4r Vinay Kumar Vishwanath, aged 36 years, Office at 2nd Floor, D. No 6-31109/1, Navbharat Chambers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad500 082.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶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 call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.307 of 2013 on the file XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Nampally at Hyderabad.

¶17

CRL.P.MP /

¶18

O;1 OF 2o1s

¶19

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 C.C.No.307 o'f 2013 on the file of XIV- Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrale Nampally, at Hyderabad.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public

¶21

¶22

Prosecutor lc,r I re State of Telangana on behalf of t re Rr::;;,rnd )nt No.1 and of Sn S.Maruthi Ra r, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶23

The Court nrade the following Order

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6944 OF 2015

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition is liled undcr Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Petitioner/Accused to call for the records in C.C.No.3O7 of 2Ol3 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and to quash the same.

¶29

No representation on behalf of the petitioner on 26.06.2023 and 05.O7.2023. Even today, though the matter is listed under the caption for 'For Dismissal', there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶30

Heard Mr. Yizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State and Mr. S.Maruthi Rao, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent.

¶31

Mr. S.Maruthi Rao, learned counsel for the unofhcial respondent by furnishing the online case status^would submit that the present Criminal Petition does^{not surviveas} the subject matter of the Criminal^{Petition in C.C.No.307of}

¶32

ll0l.i Irrr: I e -:n clisposed ol by the learrrctl r /.dcl il rrr al ('hrcl \letr' 1-rc>lrtan ,V1agistrate, H1'derab Ld ,l I L! .O 1 ..10lCr :inri th - i'efr c rro fitrlher ordcrs are requir-ecL trl^ltr: ,tasscclⁱⁿ tlr(' i)r( scrt I^-irninal Petilion and heuce, sr:cl<s; to di,;ntiss tlte silnl^(' al ,\ i:l Lr :rt Jo Ll s

¶33

Rr:corr irrg the said submission an I⁽⁾ⁿ 1:entsing the onli;rc ci:st :;t.rtus, this Court is inclinc:d ,(, alismiss thc I)r^{('scnClrir r naLl Petitloners infructuous}

¶34

(r. Acr:or-r ir rglv, the Crrminal Petition is clismisscrl as lnlruct -l()r-t s

¶35

NTisr:r:l a ne ous Petrtions, pending iI any, shrrll stand

¶36

c lo si'cl

¶37

Sc /-P. PP.D lvlAllAB^{HA REDDY} ASSIS AIIT^REGISTRAR (;.. =^Ll) I;ECiION OFFICER

¶38

//TRUE COPYI/

¶39

To 1 The )ll/ A ]d tional Ch ef Metropolitan Magistrate N^a"np rll r at Hyderabad

¶40

z. f*o^r;C;. o^{Public Prosecutor, High Court for th('State o[ Te anganaal} Hyde'ara . tOUT). tOUT)tOUT)

¶41

Hyde'ara . tOUT). tOUT)tOUT)

¶42

: ol.i:iji sri^{rartada Rajasekhara Rao, A.ivocaLe (orUC)} + onir-Cc o Sri.S.Maruthi^{Rao, Advocate (t)PUt3)}

¶43

5 Twrt CD^)(,pies

HIGH C()U ?'I-

DATED:12t)'712023

ORDER

CRLP.No.6 ),14 of 2015

¶50

: i., I e. o
/, ,,
i\t.. <br>,) I: ri
l: AUTJ 218 .. j
\ :,:.

¶51

CRIN{IN.\I, PI Ii'I'IO\ IS DISI{ISSED AS INI.RI i'l-tt t)US Wl'l'llOUT COSTS.

¶52

@r--$f.v

Vinirramaa Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinirramaa Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

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

R.Purushothama Chary, Warangal Dt., Vs R.Kavya , Santhoshi, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

M/S. Sehgal Motors Pvt. Ltd., and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana and Another

Dudem Rathamma, Karimnagar., Vs Dudem Narsiah, Karimnagar Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Lavarthy Santosh Vs the State of A.P. and Another

N.Ravindra Reddy Vs the State of Telangana and 2 Others

Taher Ali Siddiqui, Hyd Vs Syed Rashed Ahmed, Hyd