Allowed

Gaddam Vivek v. Damodhar Reddy

Telangana HC2 Jan 2024CRLP/4136/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing the legal heir's application to restore attached property. The Court held that Section 84 Cr.P.C. entitled the petitioner to be brought on record and directed the trial court to consider the pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Order of trial court set aside; petitioner to be brought on record as legal heir; trial court directed to consider pending applications within six weeks.

Gaddam Vivek Vs Damodhar Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SECOND^{DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶5

CRIMINAL PET^{ITION NO| 4136 0F 2023}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gaddam Vivek, S/o.^{Late G.Krishna Prasad,aged about 38 years,occupati-on} Business' Resident of^{H.No.8-2-293t82lct2,Plot No.3, Road No.34, Jubilee Hills'} Hyderabad, Telangana^{state 500034}

¶8

...pETrfloNEFypETrfloNER/ 3,d PARTY^{(LEGAL HEIR OF G. JANAKD}

¶9

AND

¶10

Damodhar Reddy, S/o^{M.N.Reddy,aged Allot 72 yea,s} '^Occupation Business,ResidentofFlatNo.305(PentHouse),VenkaninninnaApartment' Nallakunta, Hyderabad,^{Telamenana State-50044}

¶11

...RESPONDENT^{No.1/RESPONDENT No'1/} COMPLAINANT

¶12

tMadishetty Neeraja, Wo.^{LateSri.M. Madhusudhan Rao, aged about6-1} years, Oicupation Business,^{Resident of H'No'8-2-293/82lG/2'Plot No'3'} iload No.34, Jubilee^{Hills'Hyderabad,Telangana State-500034}

¶13

...RESPONDENT No.2/RESPONDENT^No'2/ ACCUSED

¶14

Singi Reddy Vijender^{Reddy, S/o. S. Narsimha Reddy,Aged about 47 years'} OcJupation Buiiness,^{residentof H.No.2-2-1911, NathShravanApartments'} DD Colony, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State-50013}

¶15

...RESPONDENT^{NO.3/RESPONDENTNO.3/}

¶16

PURCHASER^{OF THEATTACHEDPROPERTY}

¶17

The State of Telangana,^{Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Courtfor} the state of relangana

¶18

...RESpoNDENT No.4

¶19

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the tvlemorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the Highcourtmay} ue pteasea to Quash the^{orderdaled 281o2t2o23in crl.tM.P.No.2545o',f 2022 in} crt. t\il. P.No.57 of 2021^{in c.c.Nl.No.665ot 2022on the file of the X lvletropolitan} ttlalirtrut" Cum Judicial^{lClasslvlagistrate,Manoran.ianComplex, Hyderabad'}

¶20

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay alr further proceedings and aI Mps pending in C.c.ttt.trto.oo5 of 2022 on the file of the Learned x Metropolitan Magistrate cum Judicial I class #*r+ Magistrate, ltrlanoranjan Complex, Hyderabad, pending disposat of the above .l iI .1. , i Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the f/emorandum of Grounds of _ criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DHARMESH D-K.JAIswAL, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.4 and none appeared for the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER

) t: t. $Ff

I t

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

¶26

CRIMINAL PETIT ION No.4r36 0F 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

In this Criminal Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the X Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad (for short,^,the trial Court,) dt.28.02.2023 in Crt.M.p.No.2545 0f 2022 in Crl.M.p.No.57 0f 202t in C.C.NI.No.665 of 2022 dismissing the application of rhe peritioner being the legal representative of Gaddam Janaki to continue the proceedings and to restore the subject property to him.

¶29

The leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property of the petitioner's mother Gaddam Janaki was aftached in C.C.M.No.66 5 of 2022 and the mother of the petitioner and the accused therein are sisters. It is submitted that without veriffing any record, the property was attached and therefore, the petitioner,s mother has filed a petition and during pendency of the same, she has died and the petitioner wanted to come on record but the same has been rejected without verifzing the r.ecord. He also referred to Section g4 of Cr.p.C. and the Proviso thereunder under which the tegal representative of tle

¶30

deceased claimant or objector can come on record.

¶31

¶32

f#,-,..1

¶33

Crl.P.No.,1 136 of 2023

¶34

¶35

¶36

Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor is also heard

¶37

Having regard to the legal position and particularly, Section g4 of the Cr.P.C., and that the petitioner's mother is the claimant/objector and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be brought on record under Section 84 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order dt.28.02.2023 of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.2545 of 2022 in Crt.M.P.No.57 of 2021 in C.C.NI.No.665 of 2022 is set aside and the trial Courl is directed to bring the petitioner herein as the legal heir of Gaddam Janaki on record and thereafter, consider Crl.M.P.No.57 of 2021 in C.C.NLNo.655 of 2022 which is pending in accordance with law. The trial Court shall consider the said applications and pass appropriate orders thereon within a pcriod of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶38

With the above directions, this Criminal Petition is allowed

¶39

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Crimjnal petition

¶40

¶41

shall stand closed.

¶42

sD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSAB.| ASSISTANT REGISTRAR w'

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

".&j
fibt.t,#

To, 1. The X lr,'letropolitan Magistrate-cum-Judicial^{I ClassMagistrateManoranjan} Complex, Hyderabad.

¶48

One CC to SRl. DHARMESH^{D.K.JAISWAL Advocate} [OPUC]

¶49

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor,^{High Courtfor the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT].

¶50

Two CD Copies

itrIt !
,}
1r'

t-. I

HIGH COURT

i! bt. ?, .l l

DATED:0210112024

I
&,
T
ffi {-t
,:

ORDER

CRLP.No.4136 of 2023

CRLP IS ALLOWED

;
,.'...
&
fik
+
t.
,
F I.f,
f{

¶64

I
!
i, t.

¶65

I
I
r'$

¶66

+,*

Gaddam Vivek v. Damodhar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaddam Vivek v. Damodhar Reddy

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

Smt K. Ambika Vs Sri D.S Lokesh Kumar, I.A.S

Siragni Muralidhar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Siragni Muralidhar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

P. Vajra Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs The State of Telangana

K.M. Sridhar Vs The State of Telangana