Dismissed

Kanvantha Reddy Akhila v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jan 2025CRLA/141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim-complainant's criminal appeal against acquittal could not proceed as proof of service of personal notice on respondent-accused was never filed despite court direction; the delay condonation application was dismissed for non-service of notice and the criminal appeal was consequently dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; I.A.No.1 of 2016 and the criminal appeal were dismissed.

Kanvantha Reddy Akhila Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAB/CD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

l.A.No.1 ot 2016

¶8

ln/and

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:^'I41 OF 2025

¶10

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.,^{against the Judgment} dated 18-12-2015^passed in CRLA.No.82 of²⁰¹² on^{the file of the Court of the} V Additional Sessions Judge, Jangaon^preferred against the Judgment^dated 26-07 -2012 made in C.C.No.40B o'f 2007 on the file of the Court^{of the Judicial} First Class Magistrate at Jangaon.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Kanvanth a Reddy Akhila, Wo. Amarnadh Reddy,^{Aged32 years, Occ.House} wife, R/o. H.No.4-5-63/2, Bhavani Nagar, Jangaon Warangal^District.

¶13

...AppellanWictim-Complainant in CRLA and^{l.A.No.1 of 2016}

¶14

AND

¶15

1 The State of Telangana, The State of Telangana, Rep. by the^Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶16

2 Kanvanthareddy Amarnath Reddy, S/o. lndresena Reddy, Aged 38^years, Occ. VRO, ltipahula (V), Katangur (M), Nalgonda District,^{now residing in} Balaji Apartments, Ramagiri Locality of Nalgonda District.

¶17

Konda Laxmi, Wo. Janaiah, aged 40^years, Gouda,^{R/o.H.No.443,Bodrai} Bazar, Nakrikal (V), Nalgonda District.

¶18

Konda Janaiah, S/o. Nagaiah, aged 45^years, Gouda,^{R/o,H.No.4-43,Bodrai} Bazar, Nakrikal (V), Nalgonda District.

¶19

Dasari Sudhakar, S/o. Bheemaiah,^a ged 50 years, Occ. VRO. [t/unukuntla (V). Katangur (lvl), Nalgonda District R/o. Srinivasanagar Colony. Ramagiri Locality of Nalgonda District.

¶20

Boyyapally Laxmikantha Rao, , S/o. Yadagiri^{Rao, Aged about 37 years,} Kainam, Occ. VRO, Baba Sai Peta^(V), Nalgonda^{District, R/o. Padmavathi} Colony, Nalgonda.

¶21

Devarapally t\ttohan Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy,^{44 years,Occ- Employee} in Velulu Office, Nalgonda, R/o. Boyawada, Ramagiri^{Locality, Nalgonda} District.

¶22

Valishetti [\rlallesnam. S/o. Nagaiah. aged 37 years, Occ. Emplovee in Veluou- - -"pffjcg, KaJgngur (v and IM). Natgonda"Distric( R/o borankatdpi'lViVj Nakrikal (M), Nalgonda District.^-

¶23

9 Chevagoni Vinoda,_W/o. KanavantharJfir, Amarnath Reddy, D/o. Hanm-anthy. Aged !6 years, Occ. Employ6e in Velugu Offic<!,' Katangur (V and M) Nalgonda District, now at Balaji Apartmentsl Ramagiri Loca lity of Nalgonda District

¶24

.. Respondents/Accused in CRLA and l.A.No.1 of 2016

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20'16 (CRLAMP. NO : 1045 OF 2016)

¶26

Petition under section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the revision agiinst the judgment of the V Additionat Sessions Judge, Jangaon in Crl.Appeal No.bZtZOtZ.^'"

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri prabhakar Sripada

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.2 to g : _ _ _

¶30

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶32

I.A.No.1 OF 2O16 IN/AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14t oF 2025

¶33

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶34

This Court, by order, dated 26.02.2O16, in I.A.No. 1 of 2016, directed the appellant to take out personal notice to the respondent_ accused by registered post acknowledgment due and file proof of service, till date, neither proof of service nor proof of sending the notice is filed in pursuant to the direction of this Court.

¶35

In the said circumstances, I.A.No.1 of 2016 is dismissed on the ground of non-service of notice on the respondent-accused. Consequently, the Crimina_l Appea1 is also dismigsed. In view of the judgment reported in Syam Dondiga a. State of Andhra prad.eshl, the Registry is directed to number the appeal. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶36

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI P TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

The V Additional Sessions Judge, Jangaon

¶41

The Judicial First Class lr/agistrate at Jlngaon

¶42

3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High c-ourt for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri prabhakar Sri pada, Advocate [OPUC] w^{5. TwoCD Copies}

¶43

| 2017 {2) ALD lorl.l 9a1

HIGH GOURI"

DATED:0810112025

COMMON JUDGMENT

l.A.No.1 of 2016 ln/and CRLA.No.141 of 2025

¶49

1 HF- sTA rC:
!
ic
24 llAti 2[25 C
-<br>\e, t
D E spatcs e_O

¶50

DISMISSING THE l.A.No.l of 2016 and CRLA.No.141 ot 2005

¶51

Kanvantha Reddy Akhila v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanvantha Reddy Akhila v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Ap., Vs Balerao Madhav and Other

Vaggari Pushpa Vs Lebaki Venu

Adimulapu Vikram, Karimnagar and 2 Othrs Vs P.P., Hyd

K.Papaiah Vs the State of A.P.

Ekkerla Pedda Raju, (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Guruprabha Power Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana