Dismissed

Varre Sangameshwar Goud, R.R.Dist. v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Telangana HC28 Jun 2023CRLRC/2252/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in Telangana dismissed a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC, as well as miscellaneous petitions under Section 151 CPC, regarding maintenance and fine orders. The Court declined interference based on the parties' settlement and previous quashing of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case and Miscellaneous Petitions were dismissed; parties at liberty to approach Court below.

Varre Sangameshwar Goud, R.R.Dist. Vs P.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2252OF 2015

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated. 20-72015 passed in M.C.No.12 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences at Sangareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Varre Sangameshwar Goud, S/o Maraiah Goud, Occ: Junior Advocate, Ryo Pulimamidi Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶10

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶13

Smt. Vane Sandhya Rani, Wo V. Sangameshwar Goud, Occ Household, RJo H.NO.11-121, Shantinagar, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Medak Dishict, T.S.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

CRLRCMP. NO: 3512 OF 2015

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of lhe petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the order dt.2o-7- 2015 passed in M.C.No.'12 of 20'14 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences at Sangareddy in the interest of^justice.

¶17

CRLRCMP. NO: 940 OF 2016

¶18

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 direct the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences at Sangareddy to receive the (i) DD.No. 829807 for Rs.40,0001 dated 18-2-2016 and DD.No. 829803 for Rs.30,000^ in complaince of the order dated 7-10-2015 passed in Crl.Rc.No. 2252 of 2015 by extending the time for'depositing the maintenance and arrears as directed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶19

CRLRCMP. NO 1411 tlt:2016

¶20

Between:

¶21

Smt. Var-e Sar llrya Ranr, \4//o V. Sangameshwar Gor d, O0c -lcus-.hold, R/o H.NO.11 121. I riintinagar, Patan:heru Town and Marrda , ll4edak i)islrict, T.S

¶22

F'ETITIONE R/RESPoNDE t\ T/RE!;PONDENT NO.2

¶23

AND

¶24

The Stab of Te angana, Rep. by ts Public Prosecutor High 3t:urt rt Hyderabad

¶25

Yarre S;rnqan:x;hr,,u'ar Goud, S/o I,4araiah Goud, Occ .Jrrnio. Advocate, Ryo Pulimamrd Vi l:^(1,,, Nawabpet ltrlartdal, Ranga Reddy tristrict

¶26

RESPONDENT/PE'']lTION ER/PETITIONER

¶27

Petition r-nderr .,t:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circurnsitanoes stated in the affidavit filed in supp rt of the petition, the High Court mity ber pbasr:d to Vacate the interim stay granted ir^{(.:rl.R.C.l,4P} NO.35r2l2015 in Crl.R.().No.221212)15 on the file of this Hon'ble CoL rl cth nirise the petition,:r would be put to irreparab[; lor;s and injury.

¶28

Counsel for the Petiti rrrer: SRl. P VAMt;HEEDHAR REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Resp rndent NO.1: SRI VIZARATH ALl,

¶30

Assistant PUBLl,l PROST:CUTOR

¶31

Counsel for the Resp rnlent NO.2: MS. KRISHNAVENI/ SR JAKF.ATUSt:TTt RAVTNDRA

¶32

The Court made the f, lk)wing: ORDER

¶33

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶35

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2252 OF 2015

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order daled 20.07.2015 in M.C.No.12 of 2Ol4 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences, at Sanga Reddy for imposition of fine amount of Rs.1,O00/against the petitioner and grant of maintenance to the respondent No.2 for an amount of Rs.5,0OO/- per month as illegal and arbitrary

¶38

Heard Mr. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Krishnaveni, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

¶39

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 2O.O7.2O15 in M.C.No.l2 of 2Ol4 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences, at Sanga Reddy, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to allow the petition by granting maintenance of

¶40

¶41

Rs.>,000/ pcr rtonth in far,our of respondent \o.I from the date of this pr:titio L, The maint<:nance arnount vr as oayable on or bcf<rre 10t11 of⁽ r:r5. succeeding month. Responclerrt No.2 was also entitled tc Rs. ,,.)00/ towards costs of the petition Aggrieved by the same, the rr,:sent Crimir-ra1 Revision Cas,: u'as g;referrecl

¶42

Learned c,)unsel for the petitioner subnrilterl that the pzrrtres hirve i r:Licablv settled the matter and li./in I together, thcrcfore, the p.restior-r of mair-rtenance does nol ,,rrise. Learned counsel srrbmr :,,,d that rhis^()ourt vide order dat,: I 18.09.2018 in Criminal Pet.it :r tr No. 12866 ol- 20 13 quasl)ed ttu: I,roceedings agerir-rst the pc1 .tioners thereir-r u-r C.C.No.1083 oI 2(.t12 on the file of learned Add ti,rnal Judicial Magistrate of t'irst (ll,rss, Medak at Sarrga Reclcll' ( e^.numbered a s C.C.No.36 1 oi 2076 on the file of the learned I p,ecial Judicial Magistrate of F'irst Class for Prohibitiorr anr Oxcise at SzLngareddy). Therefo:e, submits that the contirruzrtr rr-r of the pro<:eedings wot 1d r:s;uit in gross injr-rstice to the,rr:titioner.

¶43

Le arned :c,urrsel for tLLe unofficial re;pon<le.nt submitted that the pzu-tir s have settled the matter rrn<l ir in6, together.

¶44

¶45

Therefore, continuation of further proceedings would be abuse of p.rocess of law.

¶46

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order 13.09.201g passed by this Court in Criminai petition No.12g66 of 2013, at this juncture. Therefore, this criminar Revision case stands dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to ventilate their grievance, if any, before the Court below, in accordance with law.

¶47

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

¶49

Sd/.I.NAGALAKSHMI DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// g

¶50

sEcTtoN oFFtcER

¶51

To,

¶52

The Judicial Magistrate of First class, special court for prohibition and Excise Offences at Sanga Reddy (With Records if any)

¶53

rwo ccs to PUBLTc PROSECUTOR, High court for the State of relangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

¶54

One CC to SRl. P VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶55

One CC to SRI JAKKAMSETTT RAV|NDRA, Advocate tOpUCl

¶56

One CC to MS. KRS|HNAVENI, Advocate tOpUCl

¶57

Two CD Copies

€

I t

HIGH COURI

DATED: 2810ri12023

ORDER

,,.; € ST,A fe
A
tI
tz
:16 stP zlEl
!
L.)\i\r)
'. ' n -^-.
: i J"i5r/i|
. -l .-::=; -

¶65

CRLRC.N o.21,',5'2 of 201 5

¶66

DISMISSING I'I{E CRL.R.C ti4 O<!.-' {$o

Varre Sangameshwar Goud, R.R.Dist. v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varre Sangameshwar Goud, R.R.Dist. v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadaboina Venkat Narayana, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Mr.Gautam Bhagat and Others Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

M/S. Sentini Bio Products (P)Ltd., Hyd and 2 Otrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

N.Hemalatha , Devapuja Aruna Vs State of a.P., through P.S., Achampet

Saurabh Arora [A.5], Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.R.Ramgopal Rao Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another