Dismissed

KodiNageswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Apr 2025CRLP/4758/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana disposed of a criminal petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC. The court held the petition infructuous, directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and appear for issuing notice under Section 41-A CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was disposed of as infructuous.

KodiNageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217^|

¶2

rN rHE^{HIGH couRrf8$o'J*=oBtffEoF TELANGANA}

¶3

MONDAY,^{THE SEVENTH DAYOF APRIL} '''il'lb'*rousAND AND TWENTY FlvE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶6

CRIMIN^{AL PETITIONNO:4758 0F2025}

¶7

Beween:

¶8

Kodi Nageswara^{Rao, S/o.Bhadraiah' Age about 42y1s' Occ'Agricr'rlture'Rl/o} i'rliidrtrZ Wirrl,^{Kusumanchi(Man)' Khammam Distrrct'}

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused^No'1

¶10

AND

¶11

The^{State of Telangana'rep by its PublicProsecutor High Court of Telangana} HYderabad.

¶12

Kodi^{Subhadra, D/o Late velkqnlg Age- Soyears, occ Agricurture'}

¶13

R/oNelapatla^{(vrrrl,nu"suriln"cni irrlinl'Khammam District}

¶14

...ResPondenUComPlai^nant

¶15

Cr'P C^{praying that in the} Petition^{under Section528 of BNSS} ^of circumstances^{stated in tnJ'ft'f#"t'"Oum of Groundsof iriminalPetition' the} High Court^{may be pr""to'to'o"ul'itn" pt"""clinos in Cr'No '176 of 2024'on} iJ' ir'l" ortn"is^{U/s 420' 468'471 rtw 34} the file of^{P S Kusumanc"':} 'i;##' of lPC.

¶16

t.A. NO:^{10F 2025}

¶17

that in^{the circumstances} Petition^{under Section 528 of BNSS pra.ylts} tion, the^HighCourt may be stated^{in the Mernorandumof Grounds of CriminalPeti} 176 of y of FIR vide^Cr'No .l"r?i t"^{iitpensewith the filing of the certified cop} 2024.^{PS. Kusumanchi, khanrmam'}

¶18

I.A, NO:^{2 oF 2025}

¶19

Petition^{under Section528 of BNSS} -era.ylg^{that in the clrcumstances} stated^{in the Memorandr.'lt'C"r*"i.oi Cr,rinrip"ltion,the High Court may be} pi",? I,.',, v^;' :l l* # u.iT l,*';' t it ;r,' 13;,r ;:ii;-" i i", I ii,31 ?;3 Kusumanchi,^Khammamr ;"ndins^{disposalof the criminal petition} ;;;;;;;;;

¶20

:,/

¶21

This^petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of

¶22

Grounds of Criminal petition and upon helaring the arguments of Sri pradeep T, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri. Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Pubric Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER.

¶24

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE N'TUKARAMJI} LPE^{TITIONNo.47 58oF2025} cRt MI^NA

¶25

ORDER This^{Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya} Suraksha^{Sanhita' 2023 {'tor short 'BNSS' 2023')seeking} Nagarik of the^{proceedingsin Crime No 176 of 2024 of Kusumanchi} quashment Police^Stati on,KhammamDistrict,againstthepetitioner-accusedNo.1. ?. The petitioner^{is arrayed as accused No l in Crime No.176ol 2O?4} for the^{offences punishabler'rn'derSections 420' 468 and 471} registered read^{with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Cocie'1860.} learned^{counsel forthe Petitioner and} 3. Heard^{Mr.T PradeeP'} Public^Prosecutor Rao^{Veerarnalla, iearned Additional} Mr.Jithender appearing^{for the respondent No .l-State} 4. Learned^{counsel for tne petitioner would submit that though the} petitioner^{is determined to see the prrrcess through and the alleged} offences^{are punishable with an inrpris':r:'rrent of less than seven years'} the^{Police concerned have not issuedany notice under Section 41-A of} iS ry;oie;-:ending^{coercive measures} Cr.P.C,^{as such. the ' Petitioner} Learned^{counselfurthersupnrits that the petitioner is ready} against^him l^rith the^{investigation' helr'eorayeci for necessary directions} to cooPerate of notice^{as Per-law} for issuance 5. Learned^{AdditionalPuirlic Pi-r.lse:u;cisubmits that the Police} concerned^{are ready to issuenctice r-rr;-ie:-'ciic,n '11-A of Cr.P'C ancias}

¶26

2 Nni/ (.)rl-i)-'lo. t7 i,F oi 2C2i

¶27

per his instructions, the petitioner is not avairable tbr personar service and he may directed to cooperate with the investigation.

¶28

I have perused the materials on recorc.

¶29

7' Having regard to the fact that the a,eged offences are punishabre with an imprisonment berow seven years and as the petitioner is ready to engage himself in the process, without going into mer-its of the matter, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO, Kusumanchi, Khammam District, on 15.04.2025. whereupon, the investigating Officer shall issue notice on the petitioner under section 41-A of cr.p.c in crime No.176 0f 2024 and take up further proceedings as oer the guiderines cf Arnesh Kumar v. Sfate of Biha/ scrupulously. In uniscn, the petitioner is direcied to cooperate with the investigation.

¶30

I ll/ith this direction, this C:.iminal petit;or ;s itspcseil ir

¶31

Pending miscellaneous applications, rf any. shali siano ci

¶32

cseci

¶33

To,

¶34

SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶35

1 The Judicial First Class Magistrate (SpL MOBTLE t Khammam 2 The Station House Officer, Kusumanchi police Sta on, Khammam District 3 Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶36

4 One CC to Sri. Pradeep T Advocate tOpUCl 4 Two CD Copies

:1,.:4j3t:a27i

HIGH GOURT

NTR, J

DATED:07 tO tZOZs

ORDER

..:-- .- --:-
tll;< t '" '
Y- ir: -. oi.
(t<br>f r!) 2I JUr. 2U5 ],
r.t)
-a
lo/ iC
1-rir =l'

¶45

GRLP.No.4tSB of 2025

¶46

THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶47

g
(/
t
I 0

KodiNageswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

KodiNageswara Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H. Akshay Vs The State of Telangana

Poreddy Vijay Reddy Vs The High Court of Telangana

Vangala Srinivas Vs the State of Tg

Bhukya Rajender Nayak, Vs The State of Telangana

Koteswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Nagani Sai Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana