Dismissed

Panuganti Chandramouli v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jun 2023CRLRC/2675/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana examined a criminal revision challenging a Magistrate's order upholding refusal of discharge. It held that a discharge application cannot be entertained after framing of charges. The revision was declared not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; the petitioners are at liberty to seek redressal in the trial court.

Panuganti Chandramouli Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:^{2675 OF 2018}

¶6

Criminal Revision Case Under Section^{397& 401 of Cr'P.C.1973 against} the order dated 11-09-2018 in Crl.M.P'No.^{883 of 2018 in C.C.No. 44 ol 2010 on} the file of the court of the I Additional^{Judicial Magistrateof First class at} Karimnagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Panuganti Chandramouli S/o. Bhumaiah,^{Occ. Retd.Employee' Rl/o Q.No.1,} Block No. 12, Police line, Begumpet,^Hyderabad.

¶9

Panuganti Vijay Kumar S/o.^{Chandramouli, Occ. Employee,R/o Q.No.1'} Block No. 12, Police line, Begumpet, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/ Petitioner / Accused^{No' 1 & 2}

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, through SHO P.^{S Karimnagar ll Town,Rep} 9y Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.^{.. Complainant/RespondenU}

¶12

Respondent

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Crl.P.C.^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be} pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C. No. 44 ol^{2010 on the file ofI} Additional Judicial Magistrate of^{First class at Karimnagar pendingdisposal of} criminal revision case.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 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 extend the interim order dated 25.10-2018^{in l.A. No. 1 of 2018in} CRL.RC. No. 2675 of^{2O1B and} Pass

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{P. GlRlKRISHNA} Counsel for the Respondent:^{THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(TG)} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE I IC'N'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEK.SURENT'I|'R} CRIMII[A.L REVISIo^{N CASE No.2675of :Z(} '-l_E

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The pres,: rt Criminal^{RevisionCase is filedr luestioning} the ordersj rtl thc^{learnedMagistrate, datecl1'l)9 2018} refusing to dis^:L arge^{the petitioners/accused Nor;' 1 and 2'} The same shotll I^{be' orrlered.}

¶21

The learr:<l Magistrate^{has framedthe t:lrargesand} posted the cas,: f,rr trial^{ctn 20.O4-2OLB, whereas ttre c[scharge} application^{u.r-rr; ftled on 20.08.2018, when th': trial} '^xamination of the^{q'itness 'i/t, s aboul to i:ommence. Ho"vevel , the learned} Magrstrate dt:t'r^{red it appropriate to pass orc ersc lr mrlritsand} thereafter, dis;n-^{rssedthe dischargeapplication.}

¶22

3' Thc leartlr d counscl appearing^{for the} ['etitic^{ll:rs submits} that the^{'-ran s} rx:tions^{arepurely Civil inna t I : e .xld the} petitioners / ac:: tr;er1 Nos. I^{and 2 are entitled to be <lischarged}

¶23

¶24

As seen from the record, the discharge application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C was hled after framing of charge under Section 420 of IPC. In a warrant case, once the charges are framed, under Section 24O of Cr.P.C the accused cannot fall back and file an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge. The learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the same application on the ground that the charges were already framed

¶25

In the said circumstances, the revision case is not maintainable ald the petitioners are at Iiberty to seek redressal of their grievance in the trial court

¶26

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶28

o'' "5 J,=JHJE3IE+[hH ,rRUE CoPY// GD SECTIO,I.i OFFICER

¶29

¶30

i.- rn" I Additional^{Judicial Magistrate of First class at Karimnagar} (with records) -

¶31

Yh;'bi;tl;;Hbuse^{officer, Karimnagar llTown} -^{Police Station'} Karimnagar.

¶32

i;;CG"t"^{Public Prosecutor,High Courtfor the State of} .. Ii$t',X' {Rllll^{n'*, KRIsHNA,Advocate loPucl}

¶33

Two CD CoPies

\ -Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:08106²⁰²³

/ 4 rL S'r 6r E cA
/;. (
7
o
/ti: 'l I l\it Mr
,'). at
I
,c

¶38

ORDER

¶39

CRLRC.N o.2t't7^{5 of 201 8}

¶40

DISMISSING^{1-I IE Cl t, R.C}

Panuganti Chandramouli v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panuganti Chandramouli 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

Sunder Matta , Vs R.Vijay Kumar and Another

The State of Telangana Vs Kanakam Siddeshwar Siddu

Mohammed Sayyad Vs Bandla Somi reddy

Anumakonda Shashidar Vs the State of A.P.

Smt. Shobha Omprakash Yadav Vs the State of A.P.

Krishna Takre Vs the State of A.P.