Dismissed

Gundagoni Yellamma v. the State of A.P. and Another

Telangana HC14 Feb 2023CRLRC/566/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The original complaint was closed because the police had already registered a case based on the same complaint, fulfilling its purpose. The court noted the lack of representation from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No. 566 of 2010 was dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

Gundagoni Yellamma Vs the State of A.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 566 OF 2010

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order made in C.F.No.1217 of 2009 dated 30.07.2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nakrekal.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gundagoni Yellamma D/o Venkat Ramulu, R/o Bheemaram Village, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda Dist.

¶9

... PETITION ER/COMPLAINANT

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A,P., Hyderabad

¶12

Badini Laxmi Narsimha Swamy, S/o An.iaiah, Asst., Health Bheemaram Village, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda Dist.

¶13

.._RES'.NDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P PRABHAKAR RAO (NOT PRESENT)

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI MUTHYALA MURALIDHAR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.566 of 2O1O

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Revision Case is liled by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, aggrieved by the Orders dated 30.07.2009 passed in C.F.No.l2l7 of 2OO9 by the learned Judicial Magistrate ol First Class, Nakrekal, wherein the complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code is closed.

¶22

No representation on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.2. Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 is present.

¶23

As seen from the record, the trial Court has 1n passed the following Order dated 30.07.2009 passed C.F.No.1277 of 2009 runs as under:

¶24

"Since Sub-lnspector of Police,^Police Station Kethepally filed a report stating that^{he registered} a case in Cr.No.8l of 2008 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, same is^numbered as P.R.C.No.2 of 2009 which is^{pendingbefore} the Court. Therefore, the C,F, 1s^closed'"

¶25

¶26

On going through the above, it is clear that this Order do not speak any incriminating or adverse about anything moreso in favour of the complainant. It appears that the revision petitioner by name Gundagoni Yellamma has filed complaint before the Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police has filed report before the Court that he has registered the case in Crime No.81 of 20O8 for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The Orders of the trial Court further speaks that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and the same is numbered as P.R.C.No.2 of 2009 which is pending before the Court ald the C.F. is closed.

¶27

The very purpose for which the complaint filed by the complainant has already been fulfilled. The petitioner has filed a complaint before the Court in C.F.No.l2l7 of 2OO9 against the respondent/accused alleging that he has committed offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. However, when the case was referred to the Police, the Police fiied a memo stating that complainant herself filed a complaint before the Police and the same was registered as a

case in Crime No.81 of 2008 for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of , investigation, filed charge sheet and the Court numbered the sarne as P.R.C.No.2 of 2009.

¶33

Once the Police have registered a case on the strength of the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, again the Court has declined to take the case on file as there cannot be two cases on the same complaint. Therefore, the trial Court rightly closed the matter.

¶34

Today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even on earlier occasion also, there is no representation from the petitioner and the same is recorded and the matter is listed today under the caption for dismissal', and it appears that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting this case.

¶35

In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is

¶37

dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶38

¶39

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications in this

¶40

matter, if any, shalt stand closed.

¶41

Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶42

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

SECTIO FICER 1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nakrekal, Nalgonda District

¶45

To,

¶46

One CC to Sd P.Prabhakar Rao ,Advocate (OPUC)

¶47

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad(OUT) 4- Two CD Copies Ks DL

¶48

¶49

¶50

HIGH COURT DATED:1410212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.566 of 2010

Dismissing the Crl

1HE S 14
(.
,7<br>,,
()() 12 APfl 2M
t
-i'
C5
I
I

¶55

@t{'*l

¶56

il.tr

Gundagoni Yellamma v. the State of A.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundagoni Yellamma v. the State of A.P. and Another

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

Kumbaro Suresh and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Dr.Jagdish Kumar Telang Vs Smt.Anupama , Divya and 3 Others

Bommera Srinivas Vs State of Telangana

Pulluri Thanmai , Santhoshi Vs Pulluri Sudheer Kumar and 5 Others

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, Secunderabad. Vs Amit Kapoor, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, and Anr.

Dr. Syed Afzal, Hyderabad. Vs Smt. Rizwana Habeeb, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs.