Dismissed

Smt. M. Indira v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Nov 2024CRLP/3783/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings against them in C.C.No.523 of 2020 under Section 482 CrPC. The Additional Public Prosecutor reported that the underlying matter had been settled before Lok Adalat during the petition's pendency, rendering it infructuous. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. M. Indira Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENry SEVENTH^{DAY OFNOVEIVIBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3783 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. M. lndira, Wo. IVIadduri Nagamalla^{Reddy,Aged about 50 Years,} Occ: Housewife, R/o. Plot^{No.-195, Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Kapra Village} and Mandal, I\Iedchal-Malkajgiri^District.

¶8

Madduri Nagamalla Reddy,S/o. late^{Vittal Reddy,Aged about 60 Years,} Occ: Businels R/o. Plot^Nb.1 95,^{SrinivasaNagarColony, KapraVillage} and lvlandal, ttrledchal^{tvlalkajgiri District.}

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO¹ &²

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Public Prosecutor, High Courtfor the} State of Telangana, through SHO,^{P.S. Kushaiguda,Rachakonda} .'.RESPONDENT

¶12

Commissioner-ate. Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶13

2 M/s. SGK Constructions,, A Partnership^{Firm, Rep. by its tvlanaging Partner,} Sri. Sangaru Gopala Krishna, S/o-^{Late S. RamaN4urthy,Aged about 60} Years, Olcc. Builder, R/o. Plot No.397,^{Defence Colony, Sainikpuri, Ir/alkajgiri} tvlu nicipality, lVledchal Malkajgiri^District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P .C., praying that in the circumstances} stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay} be pleased to Quash the^{proceedings against the Petitioners/AccusedNo. I and} 2 in C.C.No.523 of 2020,on the file of^{ll Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum-} Il Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District}

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Ct.P.C.,^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Grounds of Criminal Petition,the HighCourt} may be pleased to stay all further^{Proceedings including their appearanceof the}

¶18

Petitioners/Aocused No.1 and 2 in C.C.No.523 of^{2Ol2O,on the file of ll Additional} Junior Civil Judge -cum- Il Additional Metropolitan^{Magistrate,tvlalkajgiri'} Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶19

This Petition'coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memordndum6f} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri POLICE} VENKAT REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and^{the Public Prosecutor (TG) on} behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri . R.INDRA^{GOUD,Advocatefor the} Respondent No. 2

¶20

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDBVI

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3783 of 2023

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

When the matter is taken up for hearing, leamed Additional

¶25

Public Prosecutor submits that during the pendency of the criminal

¶26

petition to quash the CC, the matter has been settled before Lok

¶27

Adalat and hence, the matter has become infructuous

¶28

Recording the aforesaid submission, this criminal petition is

¶29

dismissed as infructuous.

¶30

Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed.

¶31

Sd/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE ION OFFICER

To,

The Court of ll Additional Junior Civil Judge^{-cum- ll Additional} Metropolitan tvlagistrate, t\4alkajgiri, tvledchal^{lvlalkajgiri District.}

¶36

The Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station,^Rachakonda Commissionerate, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶37

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court^for the^{State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶38

One CC to SRl. POLICE VENKAT REDDY,^Advocate TOPUCI

¶39

One CC to SRI R. INDRA GOUD,Advocate,[OPUC]

¶40

Two CD Copies

Pcsd/DL

Yi-

HIGH COURT

DATED:27111t2O24

i 11x ., ,..- .
s
o^
.)'J 't 0 lAil 2W $r'
?
a
t
F4
TcHED *

¶47

ORDER

¶48

CRLP.No.3783 of 2023

¶49

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION AS INFRUGTUOUS

¶50

qs.,,fD
tr,

Smt. M. Indira v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. M. Indira v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Venkata Rachita Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bandarapu Upender, Vs Bandarapu Suvarna

Feroz Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Srichurnam Arun Kumar Vs The State of Telagana

Chakali Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

M Rama Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana