Dismissed

N.Rajender v. the State of A.P. and Another

Telangana HC1 Aug 2023CRLRC/1101/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Herein, the High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against an order directing the prosecution to receive a document, holding it was not maintainable. The court relied on a prior order stating such revisions against interlocutory orders are not maintainable and declared the case dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision dismissed; proceedings covered by a prior order dated 27.04.2022.

N.Rajender Vs the State of A.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMIN AL REVISIO N CASE NO: 1101 oF 201!

¶5

Revision filed under section 397 and 401 of crpc against the order dated 02.12.2010 in crr.M.p.No.2829 0f 2010 in c.c.No.220 0f 2008 on the file of the Vl Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal. Between:

¶6

N.RAJENDER, S/o Madhusudhan Rao, Business R/o Hanmakonda, Warangal Dist.

¶7

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4.

¶8

AND

¶9

THE STATE OF A.p. Represented by its public prosecutor, High Court though The Station House Officer, police Station Hanmakonda, Warangal District

¶10

Adapa Ananda Rao,, S/o Govindaiah, Retd. Employee R/o 7_5_ 159, Kapuwada, Warangal.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

l.A. NO :1 oF 2011(CRLRCMP. NO : 1603 O F 20111

¶13

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit fired in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.220 of 2008 on the file of the Vl Addl . Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal, pending disposal of Crl.R.C.

¶14

Counse! for the Petitioner : SRl. Y RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent.l: SRl. VIZARATH ALl,

¶15

ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROISECUTOR NONE Counsel for the Respondent.2:

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{E. V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.11O1 oF²⁰¹¹

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present Criminal Revision^{Caseis filedaggrievedby the} order dated 02.12.2O1O in^{Crl.M.P.No.2829of2OlO in} C.C.No.22O of 20OB on the file^{of the learned VI Additional} Judicial I Class Magistrate, at^{Warangal(for short, "the trial} court").

¶21

Heard Mr. Y. Rama^{Rao, learned counselfor the petitioner} and Mr. Yizaratl: Ali, learned Assistant Public^Prosecutor appearing for the respondent^{State.No representationon behalf} of respondent No.2.

¶22

The brief facts of the case^are that^{the trial court vide order} dated 02.12.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.2829^{of 2O1O in C.C.No.22O of} 2008 directed the^{prosecution to receivethe document i.e.,} Registered General Power of^{Attorney vide document No.76of} 2OOO dated 3O.OB.2OOO.^{Aggrievedby the same, the present} Revision.

¶23

A perusal of the record^{showsthat the Revision pertains to} fhe^{year, 2011 and this Court vide order dated12.07.2017}

¶24

t\ t?-'4 ttt:r

¶25

¶26

grartted interim stay of ail further proceedings in C.C.No.22O of 2008 on the file of the trial court pending Revision.

¶27

This Court vide order dated 27.O4.2O22 in Crl.Fl.C (SR) No.3198 of 2022 held that as against an interlocutory order, a Revision under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable.

¶28

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Revision Case at this stage, as the prot:eedings hereunder are covered by the order dated 27.O4.2O22 in Crl.R.C (SR) No.3l98 of 2022 passed by this Court.

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismisserl.

¶30

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand ,:losed.

¶31

Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMT DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Vl Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate at Warangal.

¶36

One CC to SRt. Y RAMA RAO Advocate [OpUC]

¶37

Two CCs to the ASSTSTANT pUBLtC PROSECUTOR (TG), High Court for the State of Tulrng"n", at Hyderabad. tOUTI

¶38

Two CD Copies.

Pr.q.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0110812023

-1"
'a{
^
.1

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1101 of 2011

¶45

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL R.C.

¶46

P,^q, <sup>t'3'

N.Rajender v. the State of A.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Rajender v. the State of A.P. 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

Kothakonda Saritha, Nalgonda Dist. Vs Raghavendra Kothakonda, Hyd and Ano

Smt. Savithri, Vs Satyanarayana Thakre

M/S V.S.N. Plastics, Hyd and Anr. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Kolipaka Raju, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Roopa Volety and Another Vs State of Ap., and Another

Smt.a.Ganga Bhavani, Kukatpally, Hyd., Vs Catari Subrahmanyam, Hyd. and Anr, Rep Pp.