Dismissed

M. Sree Ramulu, I.P.S v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Feb 2023CRLRC/588/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. It directed issuance of non-bailable warrants against the appellant accused who failed to deposit the mandated 20 per cent cheque amount, pending further arguments on the delayed appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed issuance of non-bailable warrants and judicial custody against the petitioner for failure to deposit 20% of cheque amount; continued interim stay extended conditionally.

M. Sree Ramulu, I.P.S Vs State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^{32s 1} ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 588 OF 2O2O ,/

¶6

Between:

¶7

M. Sree Ramulu, I.P.S, S/o Sri M.Narayana

¶8

. . Petitione r/Appella nt/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

1 State of Telangana, Through Inspector of Police, CIU, ACB, Hyderabad Represented by Pubiic Prosecutor, High Courtbf Judicature for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶11

Respondent/State

¶12

tvlrs R K Ahalya Rani Gupta, W/o Sri R. Radhakrishna Gupta (died)

¶13

G.Radharishna Gupta S/o B Ghaziram cupta, Occ. Business, R/o.Flat No.415, IV Floor, Janajeet Residency, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. R3 is brought on recor-d as legal representative of deceased second respondent vide court order dated 22.09.2022 in IA No.1 of 2022 in Crl.R.C. No.588 of 2020.

¶14

... Respondents/Defacto Compla inant

¶15

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the dated 17/0t/2020 passed by the IV Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl A No. 651 of 2018, confirming the order dated t5/O6/2018 passed in C.C. No. 29 of 20L7, on the file of the Court of the XI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad and set aside the same in the interests of justice.

¶16

"..

¶17

IA NOr 3 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed in Crl.R.C., the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated t7/07/2020 passed by the IV Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No. 651 of 2018, confirming the order dated 75/06/2018 passed in C.C. No. 29 of 2077, on the file of the Court of the XI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad including execution of NBW issued against the Petitioner herein, pending disposal of CRLRC No. 588 of 2020, on the file of the High Court.

¶19

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and the order of the High Court dated tB.72.2O2Ot 25.07.2021 made in IA No,3 of 2020, order dated 05.01.2021, 07.7.2022 made in Crl.R.C. and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vivek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T S Anand Advocate for the Petitioner, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent N0.1, Sri Thumu Chandra Shekar, Advocate for Respondent No.3, the Court made the following.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner - appellant -^accused with a delay of⁽²⁰¹⁾ days, aggrieved by the^judgment in Criminal Appeal No.651 of 2018 dated 17,01.2020 passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the conviction under Section 138 of N,I. Act.

¶22

Vide order dated 18.12,2O2O, in I.A,No,3 ol 2O2O, interim stay was granted as prayed for, by this Court. Thereafter/ this case underwent several adjournments. However, on 07.1L,2O22, while condoning the delay of (201) days in preferring the appeal, extended the order of interim stay by directing the petitioner to deposit 2Oo/o of the cheque amount within three weeks from the date of the said order,

¶23

Today, on instructions, Sri Vivek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.S.Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner - appellant - accused would submit that the 2oolo of the cheque amount was not remitted by the petitioner in accordance with the order of this Court dated O7.11.2O22.

¶24

In the said circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the court concerned to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioner herein and cause his appearance and the petitioner shall be sent to judicial custody. However, in the event of the petitioner paying 2Oo/o of the cheque amount as directed by this Court on 07.LL,2022, the learned Magistrate may consider the application of petitioner for grant of bail or recalling warrants.

¶25

List the matter on 13,o4.2O23,

¶26

SD/-^{(. VENKAIAH} , ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

/ IT,.UE^COPY / /

sEcrr&oFFIcER

To,

The IV Addl, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad )1 The XI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad 3 The Station House Officer, CIU, ACB, Hyderabad

¶31

4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court For the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (OUT) 5 One CC to Sri T S Anand Advocate [OPUC] 6 One spare copy /'

HIGH COURT

KS,J

DATED:23lO2/2023

List on 03.04.2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.588 of 202O

DIRECTION

. STATE
AL CEt
)
{'i
$ \ $i\4
:-..2/

M. Sree Ramulu, I.P.S v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sree Ramulu, I.P.S v. 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

Mahesh Singh Raj Purohith Vs The State of Telangana

Bojanapally Bucha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Ergam Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Hari Sreedhar Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Mamidi Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana

Hari Sreedhar Vs The State of Telangana