Dismissed

Gaddam Santosh Kumar, R.R. Dt. and 2 Othrs v. Gaddam Harsha, Hyd and 2 Othrs

Telangana HC20 Jun 2023CRLRC/2271/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. as infructuous on the submission by counsel that the cause of action no longer survives, with the Assistant Public Prosecutor not objecting. A leave petition filed simultaneously also stands closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No. 2271 of 2014 dismissed as infructuous. Leave petitions regarding stay ordered to stand closed.

Gaddam Santosh Kumar, R.R. Dt. and 2 Othrs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2271 oF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gaddam Santosh Kumar, S/o.Krishnamoorty, Aged about 33 years, OccSoftware Engineer, Rl/o.H.No.19-9,Vivekanandanagar, Dilsukhnagar, RR.District.

¶9

G.Krishnamurthy, S/o. G.Sattaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ:Business, Rl/o.H.No.1 9-2611, Kamalanagar; Dilsukhnagar, RR Distriet.

¶10

3, G-Renuka Devi, Wlo. G.Krishnamurthy, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Housewife, Rl/o H.No.19-26/1 Kamalanagar, Diisukhnagar, RR.District.

¶11

... PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS

¶12

Ar{p

¶13

Gaddam Harsha, W/o. Gaddam Santhosh Kumar, Aged 30 years, Occ:Housewife, No.1-2-6061216, B.M. Nagar, Near lndira Park Hyderabid.

¶14

Master Vihaan Sai Kumar, S/o. G.Santosh Kumar, Aged 3 % years, being minor, Rep. by his mother and natural guardian.

¶15

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

¶16

. . . RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS

¶17

Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision case, having been aggrieved by the Order daled 24.10.2O14 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2774 ot 2O14 in D.V.C. No.43 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of^.First Class Spl. Mobile Court-cum-Xl [\retropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, LB Nagar.

¶18

LA. NO; 1OF 2014 (CRLRCMP. NO: 3758 OF 2014)

¶19

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.2774 of 2O14 in D.V-C.No.43 of 2013 on the file of the Court of ' the Judicial Magistrate of

¶20

First Class [io^{Mobile Court-cum-Xl lvletropolitttnlvle g strale, Cyberabad,} LB.Nagar, oercl^{g disposalof the marnRevision.}

¶21

Counsel^{for the :'etitioners:SMT.A VARALAKSHMI}

¶22

Counsel for^{the lespondentNos.1 & 2: SRI O. KAILr\SHNr\1H REDDY}

¶23

Counsel^{for the llespondentNo.3: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶24

The Court^{madehr: following: ORDER}

¶25

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶27

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.227L of 2Ol4

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Revision Case is frled aggrieved by the order dated 24.LO.2OI4 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2774 of 2OI4 in D.V.C.No.43 of 2013 on the hle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Spl. Mobile Court-cum-Xl Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the Criminal Revision Case does not survive, therefore no further orders are required and hence seeks to dismiss the same as infructuous.

¶31

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State takes no objection to the same

¶32

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous.

¶33

¶34

Misrct llrrneous petitions, if any, pen 1; tg in this

¶35

criminal rc 'ir;ion case, shall also stand closed

¶36

Sd/. IiIVIT. I].SATYAVATHI DEP.JTY REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY'

l:iECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judir;ia lv agistrate of First Class Spl. IVobile^{,lourt-ourn-Xl} Metropolitan [,4agistrale .)) berabad, LB Nagar.

¶42

One^(lC 1o :ll4T VARALAKSHN/1, Advocate [OP[JC]

¶43

One OC 1o^I lRl O. KAILASHNATH REDDY, Advocate [OF'UC]

¶44

Two CC lo^)LlBLlC PROSECUTOR, High bourt r,f Tela rlrana at Hyderabad IouT

¶45

Two CD cog e;.

stu

HIGH COUIt'lr

EW,J

DATED:201 1612023

-/1 --'
'l 1 rrrt- 5 iA"G
ORDER
(h(
CRLRC.No.'2271 of 2014 I Jlil. ?ul "t
.<br><br>l , !,jna t,

¶51

CRIMINAL IiEVISION IS DIMISSED IIS INFRUCTUOUS

¶52

Gaddam Santosh Kumar, R.R. Dt. and 2 Othrs v. Gaddam Harsha, Hyd and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaddam Santosh Kumar, R.R. Dt. and 2 Othrs v. Gaddam Harsha, Hyd and 2 Othrs

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

Dr.Mohd.Imtiaz Malik Vs Akberunnisa Begum and Another

B. Chandra Kaladhar Reddy, Secbad and Ano Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Gopannagari Narender Reddy, R.R.Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and 2 Othrs

Bathula Pedda Venkata Subbaiah, Rr.Dt and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Nerugommula Sujatha, Karimnagar Dist. and 2 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P. Andanr

Gangavarapu Ramakrishna, Khammam Dt. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.