Allowed

India Karthik v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2024CRLP/7413/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the trial court's order dismissing the application to recall and cross-examine witnesses P.Ws. 2 to 4 and 10, directing the petitioner to pay batta and cross-examine within the fixed date.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to pay batta to P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, and 10 and cross-examine them on the date fixed.

India Karthik Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

/,/ I I I

¶2

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7413 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

lndia Karthik, S/o. Hajarathaiah, Aged 22 years, SC Madiga, Occ. Mason, R/o. Raju PalemVillage, Kanigiri mandal, Nellore Districl

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecuter High Court of Judicature a for the State of Telangana Hyderabad

¶13

Dattam Shekar, S/o Guruvaiah, Age.35 years, Occu. Ivlasc R:/o. Road No.4, Sagar Complex,colony, Vanastalipuram, R- R. Dist N/o. Dumpavari Palli (V), Udayagiri^(t\t1), Nellor District., A.P.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 o'( Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the fVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash set aside the order dt.O310712024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.101 of 2O24 in S.C.Spl. No.1 1 47 o'f 2018 on the file of Honourable Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District, At LB Nagar.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the lMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in S.C.Spl. No.1147 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District, At LB Nagar.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J AZAD CHENDRA SHEKAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 74L3 of 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

In this Criminal petition, filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal procedure, l9Z3 (for short ,Cr.p.C.,), the petitioner/accused is challenging the docket orcler, dated O3.O7.2024 passed by the Court of Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and pOCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in crt.M.p.No.101 of 2024 in S.C.Spl.No.1 147 of 2O IB. By the impugned order, the application liled by the petitioner under Section 3i1 cr.p.c. to reopen and recall p.Ws.2 to 4, 1O for further cross_examination was dismissed.

¶24

Heard Sri J.Azad Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ State.

¶25

3 A perusal of the impugned order shows that on 1,9.1o.2022, 08.tt.2022 and 19.01.2O24, p.W.2, p.Ws.3, 4 and \ \ P.W. 10 were examined,^. respectively, but due to non_ representation of the counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court recorded that the cross_examination of p.Ws.2 to 4 as ,nil,. Though the petitioner raised the plea that due to personal rnconvenience of the counsel the same has occurred, the trial

¶26

¶27

Court, observing that the personal inconvenicnce of counsel is not a ground to allow the petition, has clismissed the petition.

¶28

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, to give fair opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to allow the petition on payment of batta to P.Ws.2 to 4 and 10 by the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the docket order of the trial Court dated O3.O7 .2024 in Crl.M.P.No.10i of 2024 in S.C.Spl.No. 1147 of 2018. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.101 of 2024 in S.C.Spl.No. Il47 of 2018 stands allowed. The triai Court is directed to permit the petitioner to cross-examine P.Ws.2 to 4 and 10 and the petitioner is directed to pay batta to P.Ws.2 to 4 and 10. However, the petitioner is directed to cross-examine P.Ws.2 to 4 and 10 on the date fixed by the trial Court without seeking any further adjournment, otherwise the petition stands dismissed.

¶30

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

¶31

stand closed.

¶32

Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASS ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// J SECTION OFFICER

¶33

¶34

To,

¶35

Fast Track^{Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposalof Rape and} ' batso A;t iii"", n'isu Reddv district at^L B^Nagar'

¶36

The Station^{House Officer, P'S' Vanasthalipuram' Rachakonda District'}

¶37

one CC to^{SRI. J AZAD CHENDRA SHEKAR AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶38

Two CCs to THE^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR' HIGH COURT' HYDERABAD} lourl

¶39

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910712024

ORDER

CRLP.No.7413 of 2024

12 '.,1[\J 2[2t
l-' -b.
..; .,,i 1 '1. ti-!]

¶46

ALLOWING THE CRLP

¶47

%&?.aA ,*(-

India Karthik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

India Karthik v. The State of Telangana

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

Syed Furkhan Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Nagavelli Prem Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Gowtham Kampa Vs The State of Telangana

Gundarapu Sneha Latha Vs State of Telangana

Bidyuth Bala, Vs The State of Telangana

Pottipally Vijay kumar Vs The State of Telangana