Dismissed

Sherpally Venkateswarlu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Jun 2023CRLRC/1001/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court refused to interfere with the lower court's dismissal of a discharge application. The court held that alibi and complicity issues require adjudication during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application seeking discharge and stay of proceedings in S.C. No. 63 of 2017 is dismissed; criminal revision is dismissed.

Sherpally Venkateswarlu Vs State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132511

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL EvlSlON CASE NO: 1001 OF 2019

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397^{& 401 of Cr.P.C againstthe} order in Crl.M.P. No.34/2019 in C.C.No. 63^{of 2017dated16th July 2019 on the} file of the Court of the lll Additional^{Districtand Sessions Judge Mahaboobnagar} District, at Gadwal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Snerpilty Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ramannna,^{Ag-edabout 36 years, Occ.Advocate,} R/o. Medikonda Village, leeja Mandal,^{GadwalDistrict.}

¶10

...PET]TIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, rep. by its Public^{Prosecutor,High Court for the State of} Telangana, At Hyderabad through^{P.S. leeja.}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶15

Petition under Section⁴⁸² of^{C.P.Cprayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court} may be pleased to stay of all^{furtherproceedingsin S.C.No.63 of 201 7 on the} file of the lll Additional District^{and Sessions Judge,MahabubnagarDistrictat} Gadwal.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^{P.SRINIVAS KUMAR}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents:^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶18

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶19

I I

¶20

HON'BLE Szu.II]STICE K. SURENDER CRIMINAL RI,]VISION CASE No.l00l of 2019

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

l. The revir;ion petition is filed by the petitioner who was arrayed as accused No. 17.^('harge sheet was filed against the petitioner and ot hers for the o l'l'e nces under Sections 147 , 148, 302 r/w. 149 and 120-8 of IPC rrnd Section 25(l)(b)(a) read with Section 27 of tlx: Indian Arms ,\ct

¶23

Briefly, the case olthe prrtsecution is that on 25.07.2013, the deceased was attacked by sevt-ral persons resulting in his death. On the basis of investigation conducted, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused on the basis ofconfession and also seizures that were effected from ottrer accused.^'l'hc rnain reason was that there were phone calls with the accused in proximity with the itrcident of causing death.

¶24

The learnel counsel appcaring for petitioner vvould submit that he was not present at thc scene and the phone calls made cannot be made basis to chargc rhe petitioner. He further submits that in fact, this petitioner was r.rot present at the scene and he is a

¶25

¶26

practicing Advocate who was in Court when the alleged incident

¶27

had taken place

¶28

At the stage of discharge, the Court cannot conclude with regard to the circumstances which are relied upon by the prosecution regarding the complicity of the accused . The alibi that he was not present at the scene and was present at the Court, can only be agitated before the trial Court. I do not find any reasons to

¶29

interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing

¶30

jhe application ofthe petitioner seeking discharge.

¶31

The criminal revision case is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE coPY/'

SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTyfEGISTRAR ,Eciffi oFFtcER

¶37

To.'-'.,. Th. lll Additional District and Sessions Judge^{tVlahaboobnagar}

¶38

District, at Gadwal.Gadwal.

¶39

District, at Gadwal.Gadwal.

¶40

1. Two CCs^{to the Puuit Prosecutor,High Courtfor the StateOf Telangana at} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶41

Hvderabad [OUT] 3. dir;"bdi;5Rt^{p'sntNlvasKUMAR Advocate[oPUC]}

¶42

Two CD^CoPies. BSK

,ll I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 910612023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1001 of 2019

¶50

1$ E SrAre
7
) ?2 iut NN o
))
3t
( t
,)
F A T

¶51

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.

¶52

G+e
@
G

Sherpally Venkateswarlu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sherpally Venkateswarlu v. 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

S. Madhu Sekhar , Vamsi Vs The State of Telangana

M. Rahmathullah or Babu Vs State of Telangana

K. Yasoda Vs The State of Telangana

Kamlesh Jambula Jothi , Kamaleshwar Jambavan, Vs J. Priyanka

Rajyalakshmi Vs Krc Murthy

Smt.v.Padmavathi Vs v.Sundar Raja