Dismissed

Smt.Duta Raju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Jul 2023CRLRC/2576/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court examined a petition seeking a docket order to direct filing of additional charges for offence under Section 448 IPC. The Court held that the remedy for seeking alteration or addition of charges lies with the trial court. Finding no infirmity in the lower court's conviction and sentencing, the revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Smt.Duta Raju Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2576 OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.PC against the Judgment made in CC No.20112018 dated 1410712018 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Chennur.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.Duta Raju, W/o.late Posham, Occ Housewife R/o H.No.4-46, Narva Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ COMPLALINANT

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

.. ..Respondent

¶14

Godari Rayapocham, S/o.Chinna Mallaiah, Occ. Agriculture Rl/o H.No.3-108, Narwa Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶15

Smt.Godari Rayaposu, W/o.G.Rayapocham, Occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.3-108, Narwa Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶16

Godari Rayamallu, S/o.Rayapocham, Occ. Driver Rl/o H.No.3-108, Naniva Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶17

Godari Venkati, S/o.Chinna Mallaiah, Occ. Agriculture R/o Naruva Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶18

Godari Rajaiah, S/o.Chinna Mallaiah, Occ. Employee Rlio Narwa Village, Jaipur Mandal' Mancherial District'

¶19

...REspoNDENTs/ AccusED

¶20

tA NO: 1 OE 2018

¶21

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 SHO, Jaipur PS, Mancherial District to conduct proper enquiry and file additional charge sheet for the offence under Sec.448 IPC as per law pursuant to the Crime NO.58/2018, pending disposal of the main revision in the interest of justice.

¶22

For the Petitioner : SRI M.M.M.SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : PUBLIC PBOSECUTOR

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONC^{URABLE SRI JUSTICE K'SUITENDER}

¶25

I I

¶26

CRIMINAI !@vlSIaN^{c-AqE lie'jSZO QF 2Qttt}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

'Ihc de' jtcto corriplairlt/revislot-t^pctll'ollct 1s I , rrclt:r of^{I( ilrn.i(1} 'Ji-rdicilrl^{Miigistr:ttt'of lfirst} quesl ioning,^{tl^ tr} Class date^{cl 1'1,.( 7 2018}

¶29

The l'olic:c^{iilccl the chargt sheet unde-St:ctior-rs290} and 5O6^{of IP(-}

¶30

a It appezu'l^{thzLt the a<:cusetl\'erc presel-rt zlr rl pl:aded} for tht^{:;:ud ollt'ltcesltccordingl- .'1'h( learned} guilty' Magistratc'^{pasl crl scntt: ll'c of [lrlr' unde r botl- cilitttt ;}

¶31

Aggricr':c^{b1' lhe sard ordcr of cotrvictinq thl ir rpr:llants} upon^plea'Jing 1ii1ty,^{t1-ie prcser-rt Revisionis iiled'}

¶32

Le:tt nel^{ctlunsclappeal-l1lg for thelretit Lt t-':ru ould} submit that^{'. ielu{agistratehacl committed an-'t rot} "l'hcn thererr.a..arrrtTenceunderSectlon44Bof[])Ct.}Lere{aSno finding rcgzrrt^{irLg the said provisiorl lnfat:t' aprl\rale} complaint^rva '^{iled bv tht: petilioner/deJocttt c rr'-rplainanl'}

¶33

For the said reason, the Revision has to be allou,ed by setting aside Lhe docker order dated 14.07.2018.

¶34

The charge sheet u,as admittedly filed under Sections 290 and 506 oi IpC. If Lhe d.e facto complaint was aggrieved by the same, he shoulcl have approached the trial Court seeking alteration of charges or addition of charges by filing an appropriate application. No such endeavour was made by the de Jacto complainant. Hou,ever, learned counsel submits that a private complaint rvas liled. There are no details of the private complaint and as to r,r,hat order was passed on the said private complaint. Since the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused bv the docket order dated 14.O7.201g arrd sentenced them by imposing fine, I do not find any infirmity in the said docket order.

¶35

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

Sd/-B.SATYAVATHI DEPUry REGTSTRAR /iTRUE COPY// rlp SECTION OFFICER

¶41

1 . The Judicial Maoistrate of First Clqss, Chennur, Mancherial District. 2. TherStation Houle officer, Jriil p;i;5iriiiln,'ti"nnrr, ar Mancheriar 3. One CC to Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa_ Rao, Advocate tOpUCl I ic P ro s e c u t" i, H i sh'i"i,;i iJiinl"s I t" or rer a n ga na a t t ly;f""o}l', !r;b 5. Two CD Coiies \P

..-,2.e.--

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 3/07/2021t

,i ;i\T t. O
r l'6
lG,
\tl [Nr
)tt.,
<br>

¶46

ORDER

¶47

CRLRC.No.2576 of¹⁰¹⁸

¶48

DISMISSING THE⁽ RL.R.C.

¶49

(9)

Smt.Duta Raju v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Duta Raju v. The State of Telangana

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

Reguri Srinivas Vs Goparapu Satyanarayana and Another

Vanama Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Telangana

K.Suvarna Vs M.Uma Devi

Mohd. Dastagir Quadri, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

M/S Deepika Chit Funds P. Ltd., Vs Syed Jaweed Iqbal Razvi, and Another

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Thatipamula Sudharshan