Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023CRLP/8948/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal petitions seeking to quash and extend stay of proceedings in a theft and recovery case. The court held that truth of allegations must be decided after trial and granted discharge from appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners discharged from appearance in C.C. No. 247 of 2021 unless presence is required by trial court for recording examination or specific purpose.

Sri. Bokka Srikanth Reddy and Another Vs The… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁴ ]

¶2

IN HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION N Oi 8948 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Sri..Bokka !$qff Reddy and Another, S/o Late B.ye a Reddy, tua 44 years, Occ. tsusrness, R/o HNo.1-73, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal District, Telangana State-501 401.

¶9

2 Smt Bokka Pochamma, Wo Late B^yelta Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 59 years, Occ. llouse^{Hold,R/oH No.t-73, Kandtakoya Viflage, IVedchatMandat,tr,teOcfiai} Oistrrci, Telangana State-SO1401. ...prttrtOltERS/ACCUSED N;. t&;-''

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. By public prosecutor, High Court for the State of I elangana, at Hyderabad.

¶12

Sri. Basoni Sravan Kumar, Q{o Qfrarya Rao, Hrndu, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No.303,^plot No 63i and 632, SlistiNivas. paOminaoar. Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-tVatkazgiri District, Tetangana State.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances slated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition. the High court may be pleased to QUASH the proceedings against the^{petilioners/Accused} No.3 and 4, rn c-c,No.247 of 2021 oa the file of ll Addl. Junior civit Judge-lx' Addl Metropotitan lvlagistrate, at Medchal, Telangana State.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 a further proceedings including APPEARANCE of the Petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4, in c.c.No 247 of 2021 on the tile of ll Addl. Junior civil Judge-lX Addl.lVletropolitan IVlagistrate, at Medchal, Telangana State.

¶17

f.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under section 482 of cr. p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased ro extend the stay granted on 12t10t2o22 in tA No.1/2022 in crtp No.B94 8t2022 unt further orders, in the interest of justice.

¶19

i.t

¶20

This Pet i o^ (: n.tnq on fo nea,ng. upon perusi,g tie I/enr )rar dun] ol Grounds of Crimrnal Pe: i cr : r(i Lt lon ,ra:rrng .re arguments of M s p /l NK,\NNtr. Advocate for the Petitrcn.i a'r1 :he riRr s (;ANESH Assrstant. pubrrr: pros r. rtor on beharf of the Respondent No 1 tr I ol S V/iDI E[]DRA JOSHI, Advocate for ln: ieslrondent No 2

¶21

The Court made the f >llowing: ORDER

¶22

i I J

¶23

HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICEG. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY}

¶24

CRTMINAL PETITION^{No.894aoE 2022}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal^{Petition is {iledunder Section 482 of the Code of} Criminal Procedure,^{1973 (for short'Cr'P C )} by the petitroners / accused^{Nos.3 and 4to quash the proceedingsagainst} them in C.C.No'247^{of 2O2l pending on the Iile o[ Iearned II} Additional Junior^{CivilJudge-cum-IX AdditionalMetropolitan} Magistrate at^{Medchal, registered for the offences under Sections 42O'} 447,427 and 506 of^{the IndianPenalCode'}

¶27

Heard learned^{counsel for the petitioners' Sri S'Ganesh'} learned Assistant^{PublicProsecutor for respondent -State and} learncd counsel^{for respondent No'2' Perused the record}

¶28

Learned counsel^{for the petitioners contended that the} petitioners were^{falselyimplicatedin the case and the questionof} respassing into^{the land of responddntNo'2' during the lockdown} period, does not arise.^{It is furthercontendedthat the namesof the} petitioners are not^{foundin the complaint,but' the policehave issued} notice under Section^{41-A Cr'P C' to them'Therefore'prays to quash} the proceedings^{against them.}

¶29

On the other^{hand, learnedAssistantPublic Prosecutoras} lvell as learned^{counselfor respondentNo'2 contended that itis a}

¶30

\i-

¶31

¶32

matler oI irc, t, lrr: adclrrCCrl Irr lar. of cr^jrlr:ncc bcf,-,rr t]tc rrral Cour.t and it is n^jt :r case to itr: quashed at this juncture

¶33

On a pr: Llsal of thr' charge shcet, lhis Cr urt Ls r;l t[ t: rrit:v.. that trulh or olh( r,,,sc crl the rrlk'qirtrcrns marlc agairst th(' l)(.titioners can be decide,J orL^., alter L],)n(luclil1: trial. Hcnc::, tl-r s Cc urt is not inclined to in'-cr i'"e rvith tlrc ltroceeclings againsl the 1rr:ririr ners.

¶34

Ta<ins nto consirlcr:ttron the lact thirt tht. narnes ol the petitioner,c arc r e Lher found ir-r thc Section 161 Cr.P.(1. statement nor in the compl:in , this Court dccms it appropriatr to Cis,rr:nse u.rth the appearancc/zrr^'ndancc of tltc pctltioners / accr Lsed ,,s.3 anrl 4 in C.C.No.247 ol u.l.l I penclrng on the file ol lcarned II Acl.litional ,Junior Civil Judge-cur r tX Additional Mctropolitan M,lgistrtt: at Medchal, unless their I)r.),sence is rcqurred by the trial Cour.t. for a specilic purpose or- a I rc time of rer:ording their cxamtnati,t I un(ler Section 313 Cr.P.C:. zrn on thc datc o[ pronouncement oljudgnrent.

¶35

7 Acr:or,:lir 91y, the Crimrnal Petition is disprsecl oI

¶36

MisccLl:r rr-ous appli<::rtions pending, if ary, shrr[. st:rnd <:losed

¶37

Srt/- MOHD.TSMAIL AS SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Cur SECTION OFFICER 1 The ll Addrtitrr | . uniorCivrl Juclge-lX Addl. liletropolite n Mag sr ate at Medchat 2 The Stat on ro rsr -.^Officer, I\4eclchal police Station, Cyt,erab,r(i 3 One CC to SRt p VENKANNA Advocate [OpUC] 4 One CC io SRt S 4 One CC to SR ,,zt GANESH Assrstant publrc prosecL tor [Olr{..C] TDEENDRA JOSHI. Advocate [OpUOl 6. Two CD Oop e:

To,

.l\L

HIGH COURl

DATED: 23l0ril2O23

ORDER

CRLP.No.8948 of 2022

.' . /t \ 1r€
i,
|;i:t- Jtr 2Ml ) rl
I
./,/

¶47

Crl.P is dispcsed off

¶48

,)*s$d'

¶49

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Bokka Srikanth Reddy and Another v. The 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

Chettikindi Ashok and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mohd. Khan and 9 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Pallerla Achinthya and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

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

Toom Venkateswara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Md. Jafar Vs Md. Lal Mohamad