Dismissed

Rajnikanth Reddy Siddenki, Usa, Rep by Father, R.R.Dt., v. the State of Ap., through Pp., and 2 Others.

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024CRLRC/1832/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner to set aside an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate was dismissed as infructuous because the underlying FIR had already been quashed and the cause of action no longer existed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as infructuous and miscellaneous petitions pending were closed.

Rajnikanth Reddy Siddenki, Usa, Rep by Father… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYDERBAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVIS ION CASE NO: 1832 OF 2012

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397^{and 401 of Cr.PCbeing aggrieved} against the order dated 13-07-2012in^{Dis.No.1'160 passed by the Xlll} Additional Chief fvletropolitan Magistrate,^{ttlahila Court,Hyderabad} including the consequential^proceedings dated^{31-07-2012 in No- 30} (357) POL/2012 of the respondent No. 3 in the interest^{of justice.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Rarnikanth Reddy Siddenki, S/o.^{Achi Reddy, Occ Private Employee, R/o.} 196, 112th Avenue North Apartment^{1029, SaintPetersburg Florrda, 33716.} USA, Rept. by his Special Power of^{Attorneyand Father' S Achi Reddy, S/o} Late'Rarir RrlUdy, ageA about 70^{yrs., OcC Agriculture'R/o H.No.5-47lA,} Pedda Amberpet Village, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1., The state of AP,, through its Public^{Prosecutor, High CourtofA.P.., Hyderabad'} 2. Smt. Harika, Wo. Rajnikanth^{Reddy,Occ Housewife, R/o.H.No. 1-7-} 509/69/4, Hari Nagar, Musheerabad,^Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Regional Pasdport Officer,^{Ministryof External.Affiars, D.No8-2-215 to} 219, Adl Prashanth Theater, Kummarguda,^{Secunderabad - 500 003}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 20'12^(CRLRCMP. NO:^{2779oF 20121}

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court may be pleased to} SUSPENDtheorderdaled13-07-2012inDis.No.1160passedbytheXlll Additional chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Mahila court, Hyderabad includingthe} proceedings dated 31-07-2012 in No. 30^{(357) POL|2012 of the respondent No.3,} pending the above criminal revision.

¶17

-7

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2O12(CRLRCMP. NO: 35 89 0F 2012)

¶19

Between:

¶20

TheRegional Passport Officer, tt/inistry of External Affiars, D.No 8-2-2151o 219, Adj Prashanth Theater, Kummarguda, Secunderabad - S00 003

¶21

...Petitioner/ 3'd Respondent

¶22

And

¶23

1 Rajnikanth Reddy Siddenki, S/o. Achi Reddy, Occ private Employee, R/o. 190, .1 '12th Avenue North Apartment 1029, Saint petersbtirg,' Florida,337'16 USA, Rjept by his Special Powerof Attorney and Father- S.Actri R9!!.y Sto Late Ram Reddy, aged about 70 yrs., Occ Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 5-471A.^pedda Amberpel Village, Ranla Reddy District.

¶24

..RespondenU Petitioner

¶25

2 lhg 9!at9^of .AP.,^{through its Public Prosecutor,High Court of} A.P.,Hyderabad.

¶26

J Smt Harika W/o. Rajnikanth Reddy, Occ Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1-7509/69/4, Hari Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶27

,Respondents/Respondents

¶28

Petition under Section 482 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the orders daled 28-9-2012 passed in Crl Rc.No. 1832 of 2012.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOGILI ANAVENI I Not present ] Counsel for the Respondents:SRl MALLESH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E, GANESH learned counsel for ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER:-

*.7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1832 oF2012

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 13.O7.2012 in Dis.No.116O passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metrbpolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad including the consequential proceedings dated 3 1. 07. 20 12 in No.3O(357)POL / 20 12.

¶37

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Mr.Mallesh, learned counsel representing Mr.I.Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2.

¶38

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,. by furnishing the copy of on-line case status of Telangana State Police Department, would submit that F.l.R.No.359 of 2011 dated 09.11.2011 is quashed on the file of the competent criminal Court. Therefore, he would submit that the cause in this Revision does not survive and seeks to dismiss this Revision as infructuous.

¶39

¶40

il ll

¶41

Learneri counsel for^{respondent No.2 concedes to the said} request.

¶42

Recording the submissions of^{learned Assistant Public} Prosecutor, learned counsel^{for unofficial respondent No.2and} upon taking the copy of on-line^{case status of Telangana State} Police Department onto the^{file, this Criminal RevisionCase is} dismissed as infructuous.

¶43

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if any, shall stand closed.}

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

Sd/. T. KRISHNA^KUMAR D PUTY REGISTRAR

ECTION OFFICER

to'',. ,n" Xlll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Mahila Court' Hvderabad

¶50

2 o;; C.C. to^{Sri. MogiliAnaveniAdvocate (OPUC)}

¶51

on; C.C. to^{Sri MalleshAdvocate (oPUc)} .

¶52

;. i;; cts^{to i6u Public Piosecut'or, HighCourt for the State} .^{of Telanganaat} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶53

2 C.D. coPies

Cil(

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1832 of 2012

¶60

F
Il!S,cr
2t (r
ti _., (u(i
a
tcHlr''

¶61

THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶62

e ?,\2'^$

Rajnikanth Reddy Siddenki, Usa, Rep by Father, R.R.Dt., v. the State of Ap., through Pp., and 2 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnikanth Reddy Siddenki, Usa, Rep by Father, R.R.Dt., v. the State of Ap., through Pp., and 2 Others.

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

Y.Rama Krishna, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Smt. Md.Chathabee, Vs Md.Yakub

P.Ananda Rao Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Sama Vema Reddy, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Satla Sri Sri Vs State of Telangana

Vema Kalpana Vs The State of Telangana and another