Disposed

Thungapati Bhaskar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Jun 2023CRLP/7906/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings and dispense with the accused's appearance. The Court held that the allegations required a trial and did not interfere with the main proceedings, but dispensed with the accused's presence unless required for specific trial stages.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was disposed of; proceedings against the petitioner were not quashed; appearance before the trial court was dispensed with.

Thungapati Bhaskar Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132541

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE TWENry SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

TfIE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA^CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7906 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thungapati Bhaskar, S/o Janardhan^{aged about. 33 Yrs, Occ. Private EmployeeR/o} H. No.3-1 3-1 05/A, RamSbankar Nagar, Ramanthapur,^{Amberpet, Hyderabad.}

¶9

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.³

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, rep.^{By its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of} Telangana At Hyderabad

¶12

Yedull-a ShekarReddy, S/o^{BakkaReddyaged about. 60 Yrs. Occ. FarmerR/o} Anneparthy Village. Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda^District

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

Petition under Section 482 ot^Cr.P .C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} statgd in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be} pteabed to quash the c.c.No.1915 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial^Firstclass Magistrate (Special Mobile) at Nalgonda in the^{interestof justice.}

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P .C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition,the High Cou( may be} pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance^{of the} petitioner/Accused No.3 in c.c.No.1915 ol 2022 on the^{file of the JudicialFirst} Class Magistrate (Special Mobile) at^Nalgonda,

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of CI.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{CriminalPetition,the High Court may be} pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy^{of the charge sheetin} C.C.No.1915 of 2022 on the^{file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate(Special} Mobile) at Nalgonda, in the interest of^justice.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing^{the arguments of Sri VEERABABU} GANDU ,Advocate for the^{Petitioner and of Sri S. Ganesh,LearnedAssistant} Public Prosecutor on behalf of the^{RespondentNo.'l and of P. Sri Sri Harsha} Reddy, Advocate for the^{RespondentNo,2.}

¶20

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶21

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.79O6 of 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Crirninal Petition is fi1ed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.J by the petitioner/ accused No.3 t-o quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1915 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate(Special Mobile), Nalgonda District, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 324 and 506 r lw 34 of Indiar-r Penal Code.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1State and Sri I).Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

¶26

Learned r--ounsel for the petitioner contends that he was not present on the date of the offence, but, a false case has been foisted against them. It is also contended by the learned counsel for thr: petitioner that the main allegations against petitioner are that criminal trespass and threatening respondent No.2 due tc, civil disputes between them.

¶27

¶28

Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶29

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 contented that there are allegations made against the A-3 that along with A- t has criminally trespassed into the de facto complainants land and removing trees and when the de facto complainalt has questioned A-1, then A-l took a stick and beat him.

¶30

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a delay of two days in filing the F.I.R. which has to be taken to consideration.

¶31

On reply, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner was hospitalized. Therefore, the said delay was occurred.

¶32

On a perusal of the charge sheet, this Court is of the view that truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner can be decided only after conducting trial.

¶33

¶34

Hence, this Clourt is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings against the petil ioner.

¶35

Taking into consideration the fact that only geneial allegations are levelled against the petitioner/ accused No.3 his appearance / attendanct: before the learned Judicial First Ciass Magistrate (Special Mobile), Nalgonda District, in C.C.No. 1915 of 2022 is dispensed with, unless his presence is required by the trial Court for a specific purpose or at the time of recordir-rg his examination under Section 313 Cr.p.C. and on the date of pronouncr:ment of judgment. Further, the petitioner is at Liberty to filr: an application seekrng discharge and on such application being filed, the trial Court shall dispose of the same on mt:rits without getting influenced by the observations made bv tltrs Court in the presr:nt order.

¶36

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶37

Pending ntiscellaneotrs applications, if any, shall stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

sd/- MOHD'^{sANAULLAH A-t!s3-B!} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY/I (' W SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

1 The Judicial^{F:irst Classlvlagistrate(Special Mobile) at Nalgonda'}

¶42

The Station^{House Officer, Nalgonda Rural House Police Station'Nalgonda}

¶43

Ar*'l

¶44

One CC to Sri Veera Babu Gandu, Advocate IOPUC]

¶45

4 Two ccs to Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana (oUT)

¶46

Two CD Copies

BJLB

HIGH COURT

DATED:26l06/2023

]

ORDER

6r- S ta
o^i
"r3
<br>J
c,
?I lut?ut i
t, )
,'
r ,//
\ !-4 .,,17t;')y'
'_-.-*_ : . ;:-z

¶54

CRLP.No.7906 ot 2O22

¶55

CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF

Thungapati Bhaskar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thungapati Bhaskar 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

Chakilam Jayaprakash and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri. Bokka Srikanth Reddy and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Toom Venkateswara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Kumbarthi Venkateswarulu Vs The State of Telangana

K. Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Telangana and another

Durga Prasad and another Vs The State of Telangana and another