The High Court dismissed criminal revision cases filed by HDFC Bank challenging an order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the matter had become infructuous due to the acquittal of the accused in the underlying criminal case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
t
[329e ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 390 AND 391 OF 2011
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 390 OF 2011
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC, against the order in Crl.M.P.No. 340312010 in Cr. No. 2O712010 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dl. 2811212O1O.
Between:
M/S. HDFC BANK LTD., Rep. by its GPA Holder Sri C.Varun Prajana Vardha Branch Office at 4th Floor, La La Land Mark Ranigunj Secunderabad
...PETlTlONERyPetitioner/Financier
AND
R3 is impleaded as per Court order Ol: 25107111 in Cr|.RC.MP (SR) 20880112011 ( lA. NO. 0212011) in Crl.RC. No. 390/2011.)
...Respondents/Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 391 OF 2011
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.PC against the order in Crl.MP.No. 3402 of 2010 in Cr.No. 2O7 of 2O1O on the file of the Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dl. 2811212010.
Between:
...Petitioner/
Petitioner/ Financier
AND
...Respondents/ ResPondents
LA. NO: 1 oF 2011(CRLRCMP. NO: 591 OF 2011)
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orderpassed in Crl.MP.No. 3402 of 201 0 in Cr.No 207 of2010 onthe file of the Vl AdditionalChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad d|.2811212010,pending disposalof the Crl.R.C.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SURESHREDDY(Not Present) Mr. E. GANESH
Counsel forthe Respondent: No.1: ASSISTANTPUBLTCPROSECUTOR(TG)
The Court made the following:COMMONORDER:-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.39O AND 391 OF 2011
COMMON ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case No.39O of 2O1l is filed against the order dated 28.12.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.3403 of 2O10 in Crime No.207 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2
contest. Thercfore, he would submit that no further orders are required in this Revision and seeks to dismiss this Revision as infructuous.
S. Recordir.rg the submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the copy of e-Courts proceedings, these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed as infructuous.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
sd/-T.SRINIVAS DEP RE GISTRAR
//TRUECOPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
" ;:ff'tii+:'it$r.c'u* r'r
i,i*'.tip,t##$.6lp;'
VGS/kam
w
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 611012024
1 HE Sr,q
t
z
2 I oEc itl24
U C)
.t
DgS9AT' '.,€9
ORDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 390 0F 2011 ANT)
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 391 0F 2011
CRIMINAL REVISION CASES ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
+(,do YV. 6(stx
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision cases maintainable against the order of the Magistrate after the accused was acquitted?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S. HDFC Bank Ltd.
State of A.P.
Hardeep Singh
Smt Anitha
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
