Dismissed

M/s.Laxmee Polymer Pipe Industries and Another v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC1 Mar 2023CRLRC/1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed to set aside an order directing petitioners to deposit 20 percent of a cheque amount. The court dismissed the case for non-prosecution, directing that other pending miscellaneous applications be closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision case dismissed for non-prosecution; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

M/s.Laxmee Polymer Pipe Industries and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: l OF 2020

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr-P.C. aggrieved by the Order daled2T-11-2019 made in Crl.M.P.No. 516 of 2019 in Crl. Appeal No. 899 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Diskict at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . M/s.Laxmee Polymer Pipe lndustries and Another, Represented by Managing Partner G.Raja Sekhar, S/o. Late.Sunkappa, Hindu, Aged 62 Years, Occ. Business, Sy.No.17 and 18, NarsapallyVillage Road, Keesara Mandal, Mechal District, Telangana State.

¶9

G.Raja Sekhar, S/o. Late.Sunkappa, Hindu, Aged 62 Years, Occ. Business, Sy.No.17 and 18, NarsapallyVillage Road, Keesara lvlandal, Mechal District, Telangana State.

¶10

... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED

¶11

ANO

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by lts Public Prosecutor , High Court At Hyderabad for the State of Telnagana.

¶13

N. Vamshidhar Reddy, S/o.N.Narsimha Reddy, Hindu, Aged 38 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. 1 7-1 -383/5 I 1 2, Vinayakanagar Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of Operation of the Order Dated 2711112019 in Crl.M.P.No. 516 of 2019 ln Criminal Appeal No.899 of 2019, Honourable V Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District At L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State, to the extent of directing the Petitioners to Deposit 20 percent of the Cheque Amount before the Lower Court, within Two Months.

¶17

Counsel for the Pe itioner : Sri^{S. SATYANARAYANAMOOFI'THY(Not present)}

¶18

Counsel for the^Re spondent^{No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶19

Counsel for the^Re spondent No.2^{: Noneappeared}

¶20

The Court made tt :^following: ORDER

¶21

Crl.R.C. Nq.1 of 2020

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMI AL REVISIO N CASE No.1OF²⁰²⁰

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Revision^{Case is filed underSections379} and 401 of Code of^{Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short} "Cr.P.CJ by the^{petitioners/accusedto set aside the order} dated 27-lt-2019^{in Crl.M.P.No.516 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.899of} 2019 on the file of the^{V Additional MetropolitanSessions}

¶27

Judge, Ranga Reddy^{Districtat L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶28

None appears on behalf of the^{petitioners. Perusedthe} record.

¶29

The Revision^{is filed againstthe order dated 27-11-2019} passed by the learned Judge for directing^{the petitioners to pay} 2Oo/o of the cheque amount.^{Fufther; no information regarding} the status of the appeal^{in the SessionsCourt. Unless the} petitioners prosecutes their case diligently,^{the cases cannotbe} kept^pending, for the^{said reason the criminal revision case is}

¶30

liable to be dismissed^{for non prosecution.}

¶31

t. rl. R. C. No.1 of 2020

¶32

¶33

Accordinr r1', the criminar Revision Case is disnrissed for

¶34

non-prosecutio r.

¶35

As a sec ur:l thereto, miscellaneous applic;rtions;, if any,

¶36

pending, shall s:and closed.

¶37

Sd/- M. R.'\MANA KRISHNA DI:PU'I'/ REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

,r,=.',',ofr'o..,"r*

To,

The V Additir^{nal Metropolitan Sessions Judge, RangaRe xlrJy ['istrictat} L.B.Nagar, F^{rderabad,TelanganaState}

¶42

One CC to^S 'i^{S. SATYANARAYANA MOORTHY,Advo<;ate} [OPUC]

¶43

Two CCs;^{to t re Public Prosecutor,High Courtfor tne Stal-'ofTelangana at} Hyderabad.⁽ )lJT)

¶44

Two CD^CoPes;

njb \ v

HIGH COUIIT

KS,J

DATED:01 ttt3l2o23

ORDER

/a' '
,.4,,.. ti t'4 .rc o,
1B I\Pf ?$23 i'i:. 1
|L- ;r'!,,' ,i
{),
.::/

¶51

CRLRC.No.I of 2020

¶52

DISMISSING THE CR MINAL REVISION CASE

¶53

FOR NON PROSECL rION.

¶54

¶55

I I I I

M/s.Laxmee Polymer Pipe Industries and Another v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Laxmee Polymer Pipe Industries 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

G. Narender Vs The State of Telanaga an2 Others

Vallabaneni Ravi Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Shaik Mohammed Saleem , Mahaboob Vs State of Telangana and 3 Others

Mohd shahid Vs The State of Telangana

T.Raghu Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Sunil J. Sachdev Vs The State of Telangana and another