Dismissed

Chinta Veera Bhadra Rao, Medchal Dt., v. Chinta Nagabhadramani, Medchal Dt and 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC19 Jul 2023CRLRC/477/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. as infructuous. The Court held that the underlying D.V.C. No. 19 of 2016 had been disposed of by the lower court, rendering the revision without cause.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed as infructuous and no further orders were required.

Chinta Veera Bhadra Rao, Medchal Dt., Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁹⁹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{NINETEENTHDAYOF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶6

MINAL sto No ot 2O

¶7

criminal Revision^{filed undersections 397 RArV401 of cr.P.c.,againstthe} order dated:2o^{-12-2016in crl.A.No.7840f 20160n the file of the of court of the} Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Court,Cyberabadat L'B'Nagar, Ranga Reddy} District, against the^{order dated 23.09-2016 passed in D.V.C.No.19of 2016 on} the file of the Court^{of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate,Malkajgiri'Cyberabad'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chinta Veerabhadra^{Rao,S/o. LateAnandaRao, Aged about} 16 -y€fs, OccUnemptoyeO,^{R/o. BN23/302, Sri Vasavi Nilayam, Balaram Nagar, Safilguda,} Malkajgiri4T,^{Medchal District, Telangana.}

¶10

...RevisionisUhusband

¶11

AND

¶12

Chinta Nagabhadramani,^{W/o. Chinta Veerabhadra Rao, Agedabout 37} years, Occ:Housewife,

¶13

Chinta Harshith,^{S/o. Chinta Veerabhadra Rao,}

¶14

(respondent No. 2 being a minor, is represented^{by guardian, motheri.e.,} respondent No.1 )

¶15

Both are residents of^{Door # 1'2-97165,Sri Sai Skanda Srinivasa-Nilayam'} ptoi +OS, Hitech Nagar Colony, Kapra, MedchalDistrict-500062' Telangana'

¶16

The State of^{Telangana,rep- by Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad,Telangana'} ...ResPondents

¶17

CRL MP. NO:7⁷⁰ 0F²⁰¹⁷

¶18

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.C.prayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High courtmaybe} pteased to stay all further^{proceedingsin DVC.No.19of 2016 pending beforethe} i{on'ble XX Mitropolitan^{Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad pending disposal of} the above revision Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.^{SRI KIRAN}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: NoneAppeared}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:^{SRI VIZARATHALI' ASSISTANT PUBLIC} PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

,fr

¶24

i ; I I t II I i I I

¶25

HOITOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶26

CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASE No.477 of2OL7}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal^{Revision Case is filed seeking to set asride} the Order dated'^{2O.L2.2O16passed in CriminalAppeal No'784} of2016passedonthefileoflearnedAdditionalMetropolitan Sessions Judge,^{L.B.Nagar,Ranga Reddy Districl}

¶29

karned counsel^{for the petitioner submits that the cause} inthepresentrevisioncasedoesnotsurviveforadjudication. Therefore, no further^{orders are required and henceseeksto} dismiss the same^{as infrucutous.}

¶30

Sri Vizarath Ali,^{learned Assistant Public Prosecutor} appearing for the^{respondent-Stateby furnishing the online} case status would submit^{that D.V.C.No.19 of 2016 has been} disposed of on the^{lile of the learned II Additional Junior civil} Judge cum XIX Additional^{Metropolitan Magistrateand the} nature of disposal^{was uncontested-dismissed'Therefore, no} further orders are required^{and henceseeks to dismiss the} Criminal Revision^{Caseas infructuous'}

¶31

¶32

Recordinll the said submissions a-rrd on perusing the online case status, this Court is inclined to dismiss the^present

¶33

Criminal Revision Case as infructuous.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal

¶35

revision case, shall stand closed.

¶36

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUW^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

YL{

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Additional^{Metropolitan Sessions-Judge' Cyberabadat L B Nagar'} ' nunga Reoa y Districi. (with records, if any)

¶42

2, The XX^{Metrcpolitan Magistrate, Malkalgiri'Cyberabad'(with records' if} any)

¶43

3.TwoCCsto'.hePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶44

4 One CC to SRI^{B. SRIKIRAN, Advocate [OPUCI}

¶45

Two CD^CoPles {v

¶46

kam

¶47

¶48

HIGH^COURT DATED:1910712023

¶49

./--
51 ATE OA
t'
(
) *I lsl .},
I tq I
.,))
rn fiqF E<br>

¶50

ORDER

¶51

CRLRC.No^{.477 ot 2017}

¶52

THE^{CRIMINALREVlsloN CA9E-} rd'irii,ii'isio^{ns tN FRU cruou s}

¶53

13
9-<br>

Chinta Veera Bhadra Rao, Medchal Dt., v. Chinta Nagabhadramani, Medchal Dt and 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinta Veera Bhadra Rao, Medchal Dt., v. Chinta Nagabhadramani, Medchal Dt and 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.

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

Gandla Srinivasa Rao, Khammam Dt. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Satya Prakash Jindal , Nikku Bai Vs The State of Telangana

N.Krishna Reddy, West Bengal and Anr., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and 3 Otrs.

Dattatreya Vs the State of Telangana, Rep., Pp and Another

Rajesh Mittal, S/o.Late Sri Rameshwar Das, Vs The State of Telangana

Lt. Col. a.. Pragathi Kumar, Hyd Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.