Dismissed

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, Secunderabad. v. Amit Kapoor, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, and Anr.

Telangana HC14 Feb 2023CRLRC/1876/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed under the CrPC as infructuous after the petitioner's counsel submitted that the parties had settled their dispute outside the court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's counsel submitted settlement by the parties; Criminal Revision dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs.

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, Secunderabad. Vs Amit Kapoor… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE NO: 1876 OF 2009

¶7

criminal Revision fired under section 397 & 401 of crpc against the order daled 27-08-2009 passed in crl.R.p. No. 26 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Additional Metroporitan Session Judge, cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, preferred against the order dated 05-05-2009 passed in crt.M.p. No. 1231 oi zoos in o.V No. 15 of 2oo7 on the fire of the court of the X Metroporitan rr,lagi;tlte, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, , Wo. Amit Kapoor, Housewife presenfly Residing at 3B_9, Near Jagruthi Bank, Sainikpuri,

¶10

... PETITIONERYRESPONENT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . Amit Kapoor, Vanastharipuram, S/o. Late surinder Kumar, Asst. Manager ^^{9"nq?.!Pvt. Company,Uppat, R/o. ptot No. 54,6-4_22,Gateway Colony,---'} 2. The state of Andhra pradesh, Reptd. by pubric Frosecutor High bourt of n.p., Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT

¶14

CRLRCM P. NO: 2856 OF 2010

¶15

Betwe6n:

¶16

Amit Kapoor, Vanasthalipuram, S/o. Late Surinder Kumar, Asst. Manager Genpact Pvt. Company, Uppal, R/o. ptot No. Sl, A_+_Zi, Gateway ColJny,

¶17

AND

¶18

...PETITIONER

¶19

1 Smt. Rishi Kapoor, D/o.Surat Chander Handa Wo. Amit Kapoor, Housewife Presently Residing at 38-9, Near Jagruthi Bank, Sainikpuri,

¶20

2 The state of Andhra pradesh, Reptd. by pubric prosecutor High court of A.p., Hyderabad.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Sectton 482 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim Order dated 10.1 1 .2009 passed in Crl.R.C.lt4.P.No.2628 of 2009 in the above Crt.R.C.No.1876 of 2009.

¶23

CRLRCMP. NO: 2628 OF 2009

¶24

Petition under Section 397 (1) Rlw 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of orders dated 27-08-2009 in Crl.R.P. No.26 / 2009 passed by the Addl. Metropolitan Session Judge, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, thereby direct the Respondent / Husband herein to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/-, pending the disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GIRIJA SHANKER SHARMA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MUTHYALA MURALIDHAR

¶28

ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

I I

¶31

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶32

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1876 of 2OO9

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 40 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, aggrieved by the Orders dated 27.08.2009 passed in CRL.R.P.No.26 of 2OO9 by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, LB Nagar, Rangareddy District, modifying the Orders dated 05.05.2009 passed in CRL.M.P.No.123l of 2OO9 in D.V.C.No. lS of 2OO7 by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Maikajgiri.

¶35

When the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this matter has become infructuous as the. parties to this matter have settled their dispute outside the Court.

¶36

In view of the above submission, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶37

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. There is no order as to costs.

¶38

(

¶39

-I

¶40

As a sequel, pendirrg Miscellaneous^{Applications,il ar-rt',}

¶41

shall stand closed

¶42

Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 TheAdditionalMetropolitanSessionJudge,Cyberabad,L.B.Nagar 2 ii " i r,ll"ii"p"litan^{Magistrate cyberaba-d' t\ilalkalgiri} J Two ccs^{to the publicpro.".rtoi,High court for the state of Telangana} at Hvderabad [OUT] 4. A#'d ;;;^{bin;r'sr''nr<."tsharma' Advocate^ [oPIJC]} 5. il; ;a io^{sri nri"gop"llavanravi'Advocate [OPUC]} 6. Two CD CoPies pl p kam

HIGH COURT

DT.DNR,J

DATED:1410212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1876 of 2009

¶55

t-4
.1..
/-\ ...,
-
: "S
{s\ ;lj1. rj
f a ,,/
,, t '__7,
1'-.-..--zJ.

¶56

DISMTSSING THE CRIMINAL.RC.

¶57

%
lnL)

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, Secunderabad. v. Amit Kapoor, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, Secunderabad. v. Amit Kapoor, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, and Anr.

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

Kumbaro Suresh and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Dr.Jagdish Kumar Telang Vs Smt.Anupama , Divya and 3 Others

Bommera Srinivas Vs State of Telangana

Pulluri Thanmai , Santhoshi Vs Pulluri Sudheer Kumar and 5 Others

Gundagoni Yellamma Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Dr. Syed Afzal, Hyderabad. Vs Smt. Rizwana Habeeb, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs.