Dismissed

K Govind Raj v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2023CRLP/8782/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed by accused Nos. 1-6 to quash proceedings alleging offences under IPC 448, 323, 509. Court refused to quash the trial but dispensed with the physical attendance of Accused Nos. 2-6 subject to conditions, while rejecting the plea regarding Accused No. 1.

What did the court decide?

Attendance of Accused Nos. 2-6 dispensed with subject to conditions; Criminal Petition disposed of against Accused Nos. 1-6 and No. 1 separately.

K Govind Raj Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8782 OF 2022

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitionersAccused Nos.1 to 6 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.7640 of 2020 pending on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 448, 323, 509 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the record.

¶6

3. In the charge sheet, prima facie, there are certain allegations leveled against the petitioners. They are triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7640 of 2020 pending on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, against the petitioners.

¶7

¶8

4. However, ha ving regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the attendance of the petitioners 2 to 6/A2 to A6 is dispensed with, with the following conditions:

¶9

i) The attendance of the petitioners 2 to 6 – A2 to A6 is dispensed with in C.C.No.7640 of 2020 pending on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad , when represented by their counsel on record.

¶10

ii) The attendance of the petitioners 2 to 6/A2 to A6 is dispensed subject to filing an affidavit by them stating that in their absence the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be disputed by them in any manner and shall not dispute their identity also.

¶11

iii) However, the petitioners 2 to 6/A2 to A6 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.

¶12

iv) No such relief is granted as far as petitioner No.1/Accused No.1

¶13

is concerned.

¶14

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed off.

¶15

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

__________________ K.SURENDER, J

¶17

Date: 20.02.2023 tk

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8782 OF 2022

¶21

Dt. 20.02.2023

¶22

K Govind Raj v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Govind Raj 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 Akram Ahmed Vs the State of Telangana

Raghupathi Aakuthota Vs The State of Telangana

Sunkari Kistamma Vs The State of Telangana

Kandavalli Vasundhara Vs The State of Telangana and another

Kurra Ramesh Goud Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s.Blue Dart Express Limited. Vs The State of Telangana