Disposed

Cherukur Sravanthi v. Union of India

Telangana HC5 Jun 2023WP/10582/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition sought a mandate to direct Union External Affairs Ministry to execute an extradition proposal against a fugitive accused in IPC cases. The petitioner alleged arbitrary inaction by authorities. The High Court found pending bail cancellation applications in the criminal court and accordingly declined to direct initiation of extradition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

No order directing authorities to issue extradition proposal passed pending determinations on bail cancellation applications by criminal courts.

Cherukur Sravanthi Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

-tI l I j

i I

[^32e6 ]

,N THE H,GH COURI FOR

¶5

;; Ifu f#i"FJ:,If ,,..o " "^o,o

¶6

"ffi^{|ff 3l.lT,B'ii,H,?,ff_?i1,,H..u}

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶9

Between:

¶10

WRI T PETI TloNNO:1 05820 F2023

¶11

f,*ffi.,iE:f^{i,yi",,l,l jlx';-1p"-"..1#3;:S#"Ii,".fi} jJz,,..?"y,,

¶12

AND

¶13

; itS;1ryft "[,"ft^{;Yi':f,ecretary' Ministry or Exte,,,, on,,*, ::1'J;"-} 5.iffirfi Blll}T"itrtfr Xi#{fiqh??,t?s:igglg?a:;,"":,; Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying ...RESPONDENTSthat in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be Writ of pleased Mandamus declato issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of ring the inaction of respondent the extradition proposa No.1 and 2 in not sending I to US Department of Justi ce seeking extradition of fugitive respondent No.3 as arbitrary, illegal and is in violation of Article 21 ot lhe Constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 brin s to book the fugitive-respondent No.3 to be tried for the offences U/s. 354_C 417, 420 of tpC in CC.No. 58 55 of 2O22, on the file of the Hon'bte tV AJCJ_CUM_XV XIV Addt. Metropotitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally IA NO 10F 2023

¶14

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affibavit fired in support or tne peiition, in" nign court may be preased to direct the respondents No. 'r and 2 take action on the representation dated 23-03-2023 submitted by the petitione, p"naing Ji.posar of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI C.M.R. VELU^" Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI p. DEVENDER uounset tor the Respondent No.2: ASST. Gp FOR HOME uounsel tor the Respondent No.3: _ _ - _ The Court made the-following: OROen

¶15

¶16

TION'^{BI,h], SRI'IUSTICI'] C.V'BI{ASKARREDDY} wltlT PE,^{II'f IONNo .10582of2023}

¶17

o RD E R:

¶18

This^{r.vrit petiti'rn is hlecl seeking the followrngrelief:}

¶19

........,o,ssue " .,,,, :.:1:l,,:; aril:*i:1.::.r#'i,:t#::f, i; ; ;'"'"'' li Hi,'# il^{tr" [ :'1::';].i l'Jli t i:} "n'mt'ui'-i'-'-; $5x+,il,J:,:l;iji' iiil^{cur,'l'x'xlvAdd[Metr(} ;iffi^{fl .-i.}-*H:{,"i#ii"frf t KukatPally^{and P rss '}

¶20

Heard^{rearned counsel appearingfor the petitioner and learned} Assistant^{GovernmentPleaderappearingfor Home'}

¶21

L,earned^{Counsel appearingfor the petitionerhas submittedtJrat} the petitioner^{has hred a complaint against respondent No.3 vide FIR} No.235 l2O22dated^{04'O4 2022 onthehle of KPHB Policeand the said} complaint^{has been registered under sections354C'42O '417 IPC' He} submits^{that in compliancewith the summonsissuedin C'C' No'5855 of} 2022,^{respondent No'3 was taken into custody at RGI Airportand was} prodr-rced^{before the learnedHonl:ie IV AJCJ-CUM-XVXIV Additional} Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpallyald} Iater released o'r bail b1, furnishing a secUrity Of an amOUnt Of Rs 7, oo'ooo/ as rr--<ed creposr't vide FDR No.6g4522and arso submitted

¶22

¶23

E--!

¶24

the travel documents. He submits that after^{respondent No.3 releasedon} bail, he has not been regularly^{appearing before the concernedcourtto} proceed with the case and he^{is also not respondingto the summons} issued by the Court^{below. Therefore the petitioner has frled the present} writ petition^{praying this Court to direct the authoritiesto send the} extradition^{proposalto the US department of Justice for securing the} presence of respondent^{No.3 to proceedwith the pending case' He} further submits^{that since respondentNo'3 has violated the conditionsof} the baii, the^{petitionerhas also {iled applicationsbefore the Court below} seeking^{cancellation of the bail and also forfeitureof the deposit and the} same are^{pending for consideration'}

¶25

Learned^{Assistant Government Pleader for home has submitted} that the^{concernedcriminal court has so far not issued any non-bailable} warrant^{or the summons for securingthe presenceof respondentNo 3} and as^{and when appropriate orders being'received from the competent} court,^{they will take appropriatestepsfor producing respondent No'3' in} accordance^{with law'}

¶26

Since^{the petitioner's applications for cancellation of bail and} forfeit,-rre^{of dcposit are pending for consideration'at thisstage 'this} Court^{deems it fltnot to pass any orders directing the concerned} authority^{to send the extraditionproposalto US Departmentof Justice'}

l I I

I I l

-l

6 Therefore th:s 'r,it petrtion is aisposed of. Hou ever, after passing of appropriate orrlers on the rr'o'e said pending applications, the petitioner is at libenv to take approprrate steps in accordance with lau,. No order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel, the mrsccllancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

To,

¶33

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASStST4NT REGtsTRAH //TRUE COPY// qD SECTION OFFICER

¶34

PH!hate of Telangana ;+,;'{*ifi[Erfir.:i'ifr ilffi

HIGH COURT

DATED:05 t06t2023

ORD R

srAr€.
ft<br><r
'v
i--
ao 23luN 2$n (,
I
*
.'-a -::. ,i-.'

¶39

wp.rv[.ro sB2 of 2023

¶40

-^{#?i3:'TSooirl'.wRrr PE, r,oN} @^e'es

Cherukur Sravanthi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cherukur Sravanthi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Ashfaq Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Mohammed Ashfaq Vs The State of Telangana

Varikuppala Ramulu Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Thurpati Sreenivas Vs The State of Telangana

Thurpati Hari Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Vinobha Goud Vs The State of Telangana