Disposed

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, v. Dr.M.Ramana

Telangana HC19 Jul 2023TRCRLP/27/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court disposed of two Transfer Criminal Petitions and one Leave to Appeal under sections 407 CrPC and 151 CPC. Instead of transferring appeals from the Sessions Court to avoid conflicting decisions, the Court directed the lower court to dispose of the cases expeditiously within six months to protect the accused's right to revision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Metropolitan Sessions Judge to dispose of the criminal appeals within six months; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Vs Dr.M.Ramana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 27 AND 290F 2023

¶7

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO:27 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, S/o Late Harikishen Agarwal, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Business, F/o 1-5-6/33, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500020.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. Dr.M.Ramana, S/o. M.Venkatachalam, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Doctor, Ryo 201, Sai Ram Residency, Street No.7, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by it Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana At Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Transfer Crl.Petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw Crl.A.No.18 ot 2023 on the file of Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and transfer the same to this Hon'ble High Court for hearing along with Crl.Appeal No.1606 of 2009 and Tr.Crl.A.No.1 09 of 2O1 1.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that 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 Crl.A.No. 18 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. J VENKATESWARA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI H SUDHAKARA RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: THE Additional Public Prosecutor

¶21

¶22

TRANSFER^{CRIMINALPETITIO N NO: 29 OF 2023}

¶23

Between:

¶24

Ashok Kumar Aganirlal'^{S/o Late HarikishenAgarwq!Agedabout 64 years, occ:} ardrJ"l, R/"^{t -"s-ols3, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500020'}

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

AND

¶27

Smt.K.Jhansi Rani,^{D/o.K'P.Ramanaiah, Aged about 85 years' Occ:} Advocate, Fl/o H.No.3-5-171 ,^{Opp.WaterTank, Narayanguda'Hyderabao'}

¶28

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by it Public Prosecutor, High Courtof} Telangana At^HYderabad.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

TransferCrl.PetitionunderSection40TofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthe circumstances stated^{in the Memorandum.of Groundsof criminal Petition,the} High cor.t may be^{pleased to withdraw crl.A.No.16 ol 2o23 on the file of Hon'ble} naEtropotitan Slssions^{Judge, Hyderabadand transferthe same to this Hon'ble} iign^'court for^{hearing along with crl.AppealNo.1606 of2009 and} Tr.Crl.A.No.'1 09 of^{201 1.}

¶31

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶32

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto stay a1 further^{proceedingsin Crl.A.No. 16 of 2023on the file of Hon'ble} Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^Hyderabad.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.J VENKATESWARAREDDY}

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1:SRI S SOMESHWARRAO}

¶35

Counselfor'theRespondentNo.2:TheAdditionalPublicProsecutor

¶36

The Court made the^{following: COMMON ORDER}

¶37

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶39

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.27 AND 29 OF 2O23

¶40

COMMON ORDER:

¶41

Both the transfer criminal petitions are fited by the petitioner - complainant under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking transfer of Crt.Appeal Nos.16 and 18 of 2023 from the Court of Metropotitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad to this Court to try atong with Crt.Appeat No.1606 of 2009 and Tr.Crt.Appeat No.109 of 201 1 pending on the file of this Court.

¶42

The brief facts shows that a private complaint was filed by the petitioner - comptainant and basing on such complaint, cognizance was taken against accused Nos.1 to 6 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1496 of 2005 on the fite of XVll Metropolitan tr^agistrate at Hyderabad. Subsequentty, the case was sptit up against accused Nos.3 and 4 on account of their abscondance and the same were numbered as C.C.Nos.478 and 796 of 2008. ln the original C.C.No. 1496 of 2005 the trial went on and accused Nos.l and 2 were convicted and accused Nos.5 and 6 were acquitted. The complainant filed criminal appeal against the acquittal of accused Nos.5 and 6 and similarly accused Nos.1 and 2 atso fited appeals against their conviction. At the instance of the complainant, the appeals of accused Nos.l and 2 *uru iithdrawn and tagged to the criminal

¶43

¶44

appeal fited by the complainant, which was pending before this Court. ln the said background, the present transfer petitions are fited stating that the criminal proceedings against accused Nos.3 and 4 arising out of same original complaint, as such, the petitioner - comptainant seeking withdrawal of those appeats to dispose of atong with the pending appeats before this Court.

¶45

The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that if these appeats are withdrawn from the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and tried atong with pending appeats before this Court, this Court can commonly deal with the evidence on record, so as to avoid confticting decisions in the comptaint arising out of the same-

¶46

The contention of the learned counset for respondent in both the transfer criminal petitions is that if the appeats are transferred to the High Court the parties may lose one more forum of revision, in the event of their conviction is upheld and their right to have invocation of revisional jurisdiction by this Court is [ost. ln the said background, learned counsel opposed for withdrawal and transfer of the criminal appeals, pending before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

1 I ! I l

---l

lt is agreed by both the parties that the appeals pending before the Sessions Court if decided expeditiously, they have no objection for disposal of the present transfer petitions.

¶51

Considering the recording of evidence separatety in this case and protecting the right of revision of accused, this Court is inctined to dispose of both the transfer criminal petitions directing the Court betow to dispose of the case in a time bound.

¶52

Accordingty, both the transfer crimina[ petitions are disposed of directing the lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad to dispose of the Criminal Appeals as expeditiousty as possibte, which shalt not be more than six (06) months and the appetlants shatl cooperate for disposal of the appeats; and they shall not take unnecessary adjournments.

¶53

Pending miscetlaneous apptications, if any, shatt stand closed.

¶54

Sd/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, City CriminalCourts, Hyderabad.} 2 The Station House fficer, Musheerabad^{Police Station}

¶59

3 Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,^{High Court for the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶60

4 One CC to SRl. J VENKATESWARA^{REDDY'Advocate} [OPUC] 5 One CC to SRl. H SUDHAKARA ,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

6 One CC to SRl. S SOMESHWAR^{RAO, Advocate} [OPUC] 7 Two CD Copies

¶62

pr "v

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1910712023

COMMON ORDER

51ATE q
(
()
ls
fot
1$ [$
o t, .i
/
--::-.------'

¶67

TRCRLP.No.27 AND 29 0F 2023

¶68

DISPOSING OF BOTH

¶69

THE TR.CRL.PETITIONS

¶70

.l-
,),,
?)

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, v. Dr.M.Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, v. Dr.M.Ramana

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

Yedla Srinaiah(A.2) Vs The State of Telangana and another

Peddagani Chandra Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana

Badugula Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

S. Kamakshaiah And 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Vs Smt.K.Jhansi Rani

Shaik Abdul Quddus Vs Anisa Praveen