Disposed

Dr.Samudrala Shankar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2025CRLP/5317/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a sessions case under Sections 304-II and 201 IPC sought dispensation of his personal presence at each adjournment on grounds of hardship. The High Court dispensed with his personal appearance subject to representation through counsel and appearance when directed by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Personal presence of petitioner/accused in S.C.No.14 of 2025 dispensed with, subject to appearance through counsel and personal appearance as directed by the trial court.

Dr.Samudrala Shankar Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

43217 |

¶2

HrcH couRT FoR THE srlare or TELANGANA ar xvoenheao

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTFENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION t'lO: 5317 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Dr.samudrala Shankar, S/o Swamy, Aled 60 years, Occ- BAMS Doctor, Fl/o H.No. 27-7-295, Gandhinagar, Hasgnparthy.

¶7

...PET!TION ER/ACC US ED

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Telangana, Through Pub ic Prosecutor, Honorable High Court of Telangana

¶10

Meesarakonda Satyanarayana, S/o Mbgili, Aged 43^years, Occ- Coolie, R/o Hasanaparthy Village and Mandal.

¶11

...REsPbNDENTs/DE.FAcTo coMPLAINANT

¶12

Petition under Section 528 of BN$S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Qriminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.C.lilo. 14 ol 2025 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, for the offences^punishable U/s 304ll, 201 of IPC against the Petitioner /Accusqd and^pass

¶13

t.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr. fl.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of @riminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedlngs including appearance of the petitioner/Accused in pursuant to the S.C.f,lo. 14 of 2025 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakondf,^pending disposal of the above^quash petition and pass

¶15

This Petition coming on for hearinp,upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon he{ring the arguments of Sri^PULIMAMIDI SHASHIDHAR REDDY ,Advocate for the Fetitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of thd Respondent No.'l and None of the apparance for the Respondent No.2.

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

./ /

¶18

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEN. TUI(ARAIVIJI} CRIMINAL^{PETITION No.5317of 2o25.}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This petition is hled^{seekingquashment of the} S.C.No.14 of 2025^{on the hle oflearned} Principal District^{and SessionsJudge,Hanumakonda,} against the^{petitioner/accused.}

¶21

Heard Mr.P.Shashidhar^{Reddy, learnedcounsel} for the petitioner and^{Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla,} learned Additional^{Public Prosecutorappearing for} respondent No. 1-State.

¶22

1S 3. The^petitioner arrayed as^accused in S.C.No. 14 of 2025^{for the offencesunderSections} 3O4-II, 2Ol of Indian^PenalCode.

¶23

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner would submit} that though the^{petitioner is resolved to face the} proceedings, his presence^{before the trialCourt on} each adjournment is^{causing severehardshipand}

¶24

¶25

¶26

affecting his professional ag well as personal life. Therefore, prayed for dispensiprg his personal presence unless it is required for thg proceedings and such direction would redress his grievance.

¶27

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no specific opjection for the prayer, however pleaded for a direction for in person presence of the petitioner in the pateria-t stages of the proceedings.

¶28

Having regard to the suilmissions, subject to the petitioner's appea-rance through his counsel on every adjournment and the pefitionEr's personal appea-rance as and when directed by tfre Court, the personal presence of the petitioner in the proceedings of the S.C.No.l4 of 2025 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, against the petitioner/accuged 1S dispensed with.

¶29

¶30

Additionally it is specihed^{that any lapse in abiding the}

¶31

above conditions^{would renderthis order ineffective.}

¶32

With this direction, this^{Criminal Petitionis}

¶33

disposed of

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions,^pending if any,^shall

¶35

stand closed

¶36

pfBSREBiL'+[tk ,/TRUE^COPY'T \ \ i\ SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

to' ', . ,n" Principal.^{JuniorCivit Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at}

¶38

, T:H:":l'o"'^{o*""''Police Station Hasanparthv' Hanumakonda} District'One

¶39

District'One^{CC to Sri PULIMAMIDISHASHIDHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUCI} High^{court for the Stateof}

¶40

+:,",fr*i$E[l#l btt+'" '*o""utoR'

5.^Two CP Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED;17t04t2025

ORDER

CRLP.No.S317 ot 2025

-z'
/.(t-tn
)
21 tlJB 205
t D['.s ,- 1l c 1,jr-1

¶50

CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF. %- ffi"t-

¶51

Dr.Samudrala Shankar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Samudrala Shankar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kathula Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Aslam @ Munnu Vs The State of Telangana

Gajawada Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. B. Shoba Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Balsuguri Chandu @ Chandu Mohammad Vs The State of Telangana

Balram Nehru Vs The state of Telangana