Dismissed

M.A. Rasheed Jameel v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Aug 2024CRLP/1255/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed an infructuous criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings, noting the absence of petitioner representation and the transfer of jurisdiction to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed as infructuous due to lack of petitioner representation and jurisdictional transfer.

M.A. Rasheed Jameel Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[^329s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

.THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION N O: 1255 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.A. Rasheed. J_ameel, S/o M A.G. Jameet Aged about 51 years. Health Fipgcfor,^{South Central Railway Guntakal Rarlwa! Colony, Guntsii<al} Anantapur District

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Sta-te of_Telangana, rep. by its Special public prosecutor, C.B.l. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad ...RESPONdENT

¶12

2 A. Kullayappa, S/o A. Ankanna, Aged about 37 years, Occ Saffaiwala At South.Central Railway Station, Guntakal Anantapuramu district R/o 716/8, Santhinagar, Railway Quarlers, Guntakal, Anantapuramu District

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 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 call for the records pertarning to C C No. 9 of 2013 on the fili of Principal Special Judge for cBl cases at Gaganvihar Hyderabad and quash the same against the petitioner.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶16

Petition under Section 482 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 Dispense with the filing of certified copy of Charge sheet in C.C.No. 9 of 2013 On the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Gaganvihar Hyderabad.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2019

¶18

Petition under Section 482 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 grant stay of all further proceed ing s-includ ing appearance of the

¶19

petitioner. ln CC.No.9 of 2013 On the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Case:; at Gaganvihar Hyderabad pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Mohd Gulam Raso,:I, (Not present) Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. Srujan Kumar Reddy, Standing Counsel Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I i

{I I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL c PETITI ON No.1255 oF 2019

¶27

ORDE R:

¶28

The present Criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in c.c.No.9 of 2013 on the file of learned principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Gagan Vihar, Hyderabad.

¶29

No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel Special Public Prosecutor for CBL perused the record.

¶30

There is no representation for the petitioner. On the last date of hearing, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner, and therefore, the matter was directed to be posted today under the caption for dismissal,. In spite of matter being listed today under the caption .for dismissal,, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the cause in the Criminal Petition does not survive as the Calendar Case is

\ \

i t f I I I

transferred to Specia_l Courts for CBI Cases at Kurnool. Hence, seeks to dismiss this Criminal petition as infructuous as the jurisdiction lies before the High Court of Amaravathi.

¶38

Recording the above made submission, this Criminal

¶39

Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶40

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶41

closed.

¶42

¶43

Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To, -. The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Gaganvihar Hyderabad 2 One CC to Sri. Mohd Gulam Rasool, Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

:i One CC to Sri Srujan Kumar Reddy T (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT

¶48

COUNSEL) Advocate [OPUCI

¶49

Two CD Copies

Lt&

HIGH COURT

DATE:.D:'1410812024

ORDER

CRL['.No.1255 of 2019

¶56

1HE S la
I
oo
02 Lt; Z0Zl
\ *
\ 't
o *
D4 icHEt)

¶57

CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS.

¶58

C Al.
0u/4
,N

M.A. Rasheed Jameel v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A. Rasheed Jameel v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ponagandla Jyothi and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

M. Vijaya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Madireddy Venkata Vijaya Ram Vs The State of Telangana

P.Venkateshwar Rao Vs State of Telangana

Srinivasa Rao Dongari Vs the State of Telangana

Mamindla Ashok Vs The State of Telangana