Dismissed

Shaik Yousuf and Another v. Syed Moosa and Another

Telangana HC13 Dec 2024CRLRC/2582/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the trial court had already convicted the petitioners in the underlying criminal suit, no further orders were required, rendering the revision infructuous. The Assistant Public Prosecutor took no objection, and the Court dismissed the case.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as infructuous without any further orders.

Shaik Yousuf and Another Vs Syed Moosa and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶4

CRIMINAL SION CASE NO:2582 0F 2013

¶5

Revision filed under section 397 R/w section 401 of crpc the High court aa-y-9.^{qfeasedto passed againstthe order dated2s.11.2o13} in Mp No-105i of 2013 in sc No. 152 of 20lo on the fite of the court of the V Additionat ueiroforitrn Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, at Hyderabad.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shaik Yousuf S/o Shaik Ahmed Hussain

¶8

Shaik Ahmed Hussain S/o Shaik Bade Miya

¶9

...pETtTtONER/Accused No.2 and 3

¶10

AND

¶11

Syed Moosa s/o chand sab occ: colour work, R/o H.No.2l-520, Krishna Nagar Kachiguda,BesideGolnaka,Hyderabad ...RespondenUDeiactocomplainant

¶12

state of AP, rep. by^pubtic prosecutor, ,"r "":::rr::Iffi",""",

¶13

CrIRC MP No.lo7? ot 2013 :

¶14

Petition under section 482 crpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit filed in support.of the petition, ttre High court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding against the petitioners in sc^{-No. ,ls2} ot iolo on the fiolsoithe court of the V Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Mahila court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminai Revision Case.

¶15

CrIRC MP No.2707 ot 2O15:

¶16

Petition under section 4g2 ctpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, ttie High court may be pleased to extend ![e_ lnterim^{stay granted on 07 .M.2014 in crr RC Mp No. 4072} 0t iot e in crtRc No. 2582 ot 2013 of this Court.

¶17

counsel for the Petitioner(s):sRl. K. uday Kumar, Rep.sri D. pumachandra Reddy

¶18

counsel for the Respondent : Mr. E.Ganesh, Assistant pubric prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2582 OF 2()13

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present Criminal Revision Case is frled against the order dated 25.11.2O13 in M.P.No.1O5t of 2O13 in S.C.No.l52 of 2O1O on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").

¶26

Heard Mr. K. Uday Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. D. Purna Chadra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2 - State.

¶27

karned counsel for the petitioner submits that S.C.No.152 of 2O1O ordered in convicting the petitioners by the trial Court. Hence, no further orders are required in this Revision. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision as infructuous.

¶28

Learned Assistalt Public prosecutor takes no objection to the same.

¶29

Recording the submissions made by both the learned

¶30

counsel, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous.

¶31

Miscellaleous Petitions, pending if aly, shall stand

¶32

closed.

¶33

Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPU EGISTRAR

/,TRUE COPY//

SE ION OFFICER

To,

1 V Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, MahilaCourt'at Hyderabad' (with} records, if^anY)

¶38

One CC to^{SRl. D.Purnachandra Reddy Advocate [OPUCI}

¶39

Two CC to^{Mr. E'Ganesh,Assistant PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)}

¶40

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:13.12.2024

1 'dE Sf4 /.C
(
c
-:) I
i
) 2 7 FEB zoz5
L,
I
Dr
>o/\f.,. =-l'

¶47

ORDER

¶48

CRLRC.No.2582 of 2013

¶49

Dismissing the Criminal Revision Case as lnfructuous

¶50

.r
<br>

Shaik Yousuf and Another v. Syed Moosa and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Yousuf and Another v. Syed Moosa and Another

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

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

Sri.M.K.Venu Murali Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Nanavath Rangamma, Saleem Nagar Colony, Hyderabad Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court

Smt. Tallpragada Lalitha Rau alias Lalitha Kumari Rau Vs The State of Telangana