Dismissed

Smt.Pratapagiri Padmalatha, Karimnagar and Anr., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC13 Mar 2024CRLRC/1707/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC disposed of a Criminal Revision challenging an order dismissing an application for adjournment. The High Court found the petitioner's claim of illness unconvincing and allowed no change therein.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision was dismissed; the petitioner is entitled to work out legal remedies available to her.

Smt.Pratapagiri Padmalatha, Karimnagar and Anr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁹⁹ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVIS ION CASE NO: 1707 0F 2013

¶8

criminar Revision case fired under section 397 & 401 of crpc against dated 17-06-2013 made in cr.Mp.No. 231 oI 2012 in FCMC No. 11 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Judge, Famiry court-cum-Additionar District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

PTt . Pratapagiri. padmatatha Wo. Ramesh, R/o. H. No.3-69_93, Subashnagar, Karimnagar.

¶11

Praptagiri Harshavardhan, S/o Ramesh, (petitioner No.2 being minor, Rep. bv his naturarmother and guardian peiiilohdi N;.i, p. piariliirlJ'j'^'|v'! ' '|^rvH'

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

'1. The State of A.p., rept. by public prosecutor, High Court of A.p. Hyderabad.

¶15

Pratapgiri Ramesh, S/o. yadagiri,.Aged 35yqars, Occ: Software Engineer, Rr/o. H.No. 11-62t1 , Husnaoadviitag"e ino rfiira:irl"rimnaslr oEiiiiil-"

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri E Venkata Reddy counset forthe Respondent No. ,,fl;$.l3H"y

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: None Appeared

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶20

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶23

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1707 of 201.3

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

1 This Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner/respondent to set aside the order dated 77.06.2013 passed in Crl.M.P. No.231 of 2012 in F.C.M.C. No.11 of 2011 on the file of the learned ludge, at Family Court-Cum-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Karimnagar.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing

¶27

respondent/State.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that the Court below passed order dated 17.05.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.231 of 2012 in F.C.M.C. No.11 of 2011 that the affidavit of the petitioner reveals that she suffered

¶29

from jaundice prior to 12.04.2012. The docket order filed by the respondent in O.P.No.92 of 2011 reveal that the petitioner attended - - the said i6fiit on 20.03.2012, o7.M.zOtz, 18.06.2072 and. 07.07 .2072

¶30

and the ground urged by the petitioner that she suffered from

¶31

Pagc 2 of4

¶32

jaundice and could not attend the Court seems to be false. In these circumstances, the petitioner failed to make out any case^{that she} suffered from jaundice and could not attend the learned Judge, at Family Court-Cum-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Karimnagar on12.04.2012. Aggrieved by the said order,^{the present} Criminal Revision Case is filed

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit^{that the} order passed against the petitioner herein^{is not} in^{accordance with} law and therefore, seeks to set aside the same.

¶34

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing^{for the} respondent-State is present and takes no^{objection to the same.}

¶35

A perusal of the record shows that the Criminal^Revision Case pertains to the year 2072. The^{reasons stated by the Court} below is sufficient and^{appropriate.It is needlessto mention that} the petitioner is at liberty to^work out^{the remedies as available}

¶36

under law.

¶37

Page 3 of4

¶38

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain

¶39

the Criminal Revision Case at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal

¶40

Revision Case is dismissed.

¶41

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

Sd/- B. Satyavathi Deputy Registrar

//TRUE COPY//

h,__ SECTIONbFFICER

To,

The Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

¶47

fwo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶48

One CC to SRl. E Venkata Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies

BR/VH

a-'..

I/ I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1310312024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1707 ot 2013

¶58

!,' . <br>li,,..:),i- ,-..)
o) 0 4 JUL 2[24 .LC)
t
;,i1,
\ *
\ (r0
PATCH
.ign..'.----

¶59

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C.

¶60

Q9
G)or'ffi

Smt.Pratapagiri Padmalatha, Karimnagar and Anr., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Pratapagiri Padmalatha, Karimnagar and Anr., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

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

Kohilakonda Satish Kumar Vs the State of Ap.

Gugulothu Reddy, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Gutala Raju and 4 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Gunja Chinna Yellaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Gandikota Pedda Narsimulu, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Murali Lohia, Vs Ameenaiah Valluru, and Another