The High Court disposed of a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a discharge application, directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within six months and dispensing with the accused's presence on adjournments.
Direction to trial court to conclude trial within 6 months; presence of accused dispensed with on adjournments.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 894 OF 2024
Revision filed under Section 438 & 442 BNSS, being aggrieved by the order dated'17-05-2024 passed in CRLMP.No.13B0 of 2022 in CC.No.977 ot 2021 ( Old CC.No.1145 o'f 2020) on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal and allow the Criminal Revision Case in the interest of Justice.
Between:
Thaduru Paramesh, S/o Ramachandram, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o H.No.3-74l2, Gandhi Park, Choutuppal Town and Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana State.
..Petitioner/ Accused No.2
AND
...RespondenU De-Facto Complainant
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in CC.No,977 of 2021 Old CC.No.1145 of 2020 on the file of Honble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal, in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. M A K Mukheed
Counsel for the Respondents: Jithener Rao Veeramalla Addl Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following: ORDER:-
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.8 94 0F 202+
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 17.O5.2O24 in Crl.M.p.No. t3BO of 2022 in C.C.No.17.O5.2O24 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal (for short, "the trial Court") seeking to discharge the petitioner/ accused No.2 from the charges under Sections 417, 42O,2O3, 12O(B) r/w 34 of Indian penal Code.
2
I
son's bike from rear side, due to which the son of LW. 1 died on the spot. Basing on the said facts, F.l.R.No.442 of 2020 was registered against accused Nos. I to 3 .for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 42O, 2O3, 120(B) rlw 34 of IpC. Petitioner/accused No.2 hled a discharge appiication before the trial Court, seeking to discharge him from the charges levelled against him. The trial Court, vide impugned order, dismissed the discharge application liled by petitioner/ accused No.2, stating that there are sufficient grounds to proceed. against the petitioner. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present Revision.
interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted and seeks to dismiss this Revision
Miscelianeous Petitions, pending if any, shali stald closed.
Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
SEC ION OFFICER
\q--
I I I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 1111t2024
ORDER
'{ 1B l*'n ztffi
I
CRLRC.No.894 of 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DTSPOSED
F? .,F4 X*
--t*_-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene in a discharge application where the trial is continuing?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Thaduru Paramesh
State of Telangana
Daivala Narsaiah
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
