Dismissed

Sri P.M.Rahul v. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Its P.P., and 2 Others

Telangana HC28 Jul 2023CRLRC/751/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed Criminal Revision Case No. 751 of 2011. The petitioner failed to appear or submit representation after multiple listings dating back to 2022, evincing no interest in prosecuting the case. The court dismissed the revision for default.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case No. 751 of 2011 is dismissed for default. No costs. Pending interim applications are also stood dismissed.

Sri P.M.Rahul Vs the State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STAIE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 7s1 OF 2011

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Orders dated 14.02.2011^passed in Case No. C1311312007 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Division Officer, Bhongir.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri P.M.Rahul, S/o.P.E.tl4adan N.4ohan Rao, Age: 34 years, Occ: Business (Architect), R/o. H.No. 9-6-252, Durga Bhavani Nagar, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional l.4agistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District.

¶14

Smt. Garedepally Vasantha Laxmi,, Wo. Late Ramachandraiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. # 204,Swathi Apartmetns, Saleemnagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2011(CRLRCMP. NO: 1122 OF 2011)

¶17

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 suspend the operation of the orders/Proceedings passed in Case No. C1311312007 dated 14-2-2011 by the sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Division Officer, Bhongir.

¶18

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri A. H. CHAKRAVARTHY^(Not t)r,:'sent)

¶20

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Mr. VIZARATH ALl, AS!;lSTAllT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

Counsel for Respo rdent No.2 : None appeared

¶22

Counsel for Resportdent No.3 : Sri M. VENKATESWER RAO

¶23

The Court made th( following: ORDER

¶24

?HE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.751 OF 2011

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed praying to set aside the orders/proceedings passed in case No.C/3113/2OO7 dated 14.O2.2011 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Division Officer, Bhongir.

¶27

No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing lor respondent State.

¶28

A perusal of record shows that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 22.O9.2022, 21.O3.2O23 and 28.07.2023. Even today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner inspite of listing the rnatter under the caption, "for dismissal". This shows that the petitioner is not evincing any interest to prosecute the case.

¶29

Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed^{for default.} No costs.

¶30

Interim A rplications, pending if any, shall stzrnd dismissed.

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

Sd/. K. SAILESHI DT:P UTY REGISTRAR t_,lg

¶33

St:CTION OFFICER

¶34

To,

¶35

The Sub Div sional lr.4agistrate and Revenue Division Offit,er, Bhongir. (with records, if al ry)

¶36

The Station louse Officer, Choutuppal Police Station, Bh,rn3ir.

¶37

One CC to l;ri A.H. CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate [OPUCI

¶38

One CC to S ri M. VENKATESWER RAO, Advocate, [OPUC]

¶39

Two CCs to ihe Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of T,:langana at Hyderabad. OUT)

¶40

Two CD C,>pies

N-rt s}-

1 i

HIGH COUF]1'

DATED:0410812023

ORDER

CRLRC.No^.',' t;1 of 201¹

¶48

¶49

I aa. ; ttE 9TA75.
)+
v 7.
cu 11 sEf ?m
.L
,t-
l
4,4..\ ..eb
PAra

¶50

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶51

FOR DEFAULT

¶52

$
@ L
q,b

Sri P.M.Rahul v. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Its P.P., and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P.M.Rahul v. the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Its P.P., and 2 Others

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

Ajjuri Sathish Vs the State of A.P.

Mir Faiyaz Ali Khan, Hyderabad., Vs Mrs. Zee Shan Nawaz, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Sri Arvind Agarwal Vs the State of Telangana

Vuppula Shailesh Kumar, Bangalore Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Radhari Ashok Kumar, Ananthapur Dist. Vs Radhari Sujatha, Warangal Dist. and Ano

Naguru Nageswar Reddy, Kadapa Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 3 Otrs.