Disposed

A. Raghu Ram v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jul 2025CRLP/9891/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a criminal case under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC sought dispensation of their personal presence at every adjournment, citing hardship to employment. Subject to appearance through counsel and personal attendance when directed by the trial court, personal presence was dispensed with.

What did the court decide?

Personal presence of petitioners in C.C.No.1262 of 2019 dispensed with, subject to counsel appearing each adjournment and personal attendance when directed; lapse annuls the order.

A. Raghu Ram Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

|^32'tv I

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEN.TUKARAMJI}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETIT^{ION NO| 9891 0F 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 A. Raghu Ram,^{S/o Narayana,Age about48years-,^} ^^{Occ Business'} iiio.H.r.lt e-z- itoi ,^{noaoNo 10' BanjaraHills, Hyderabad-sOO 034'}

¶9

2 AmitPrasadDube,S/oRajendraprasadDube'Age-38years'OccBusiness' R/o. H. No.3-22,Vattinagulapally^{village,GandipetMandal' KangaKeooy} Districtl30-1 , Deviroad,^{Dharmabad, Nanded Distrect'}

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{NOS.1 & 2}

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Public Prosecutor'HighCourt of} Hyderabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Sri. A. Srinivasa^{Raju, s/ Not known to the petitione^rs, AgeMajor'Occ'} -^ Employees, R/o.^{H.irlo.2-1 21I 4, SatyamEnclav-e,.SuchitraJunctron'Post} .t-eeainietta(v) Secunderabad^5b0 lEmployee^{of M/s J R B Agro FarmsPvt'} Ltd.),

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

PetitionunderSection52BofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the^{Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be} pi"rr"J t" quash the C.C.No.'1262^{of 2019 on the file of I Additional SeniorCivil} irag" Corrt^{Ranga Reddy District at L B'Nagar' arised out of Crime.in} f.t.i.tto.zOS of^{2018 aatedtS.tO.Z018on the file of the GachibowliPolice} Station, Cyberabad^{Commissionerate, State of Telangana'}

¶16

t.A. NO: 1 OF²⁰²⁴

¶17

Petition under section^{528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances} stated in the^{Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court,may be} to stay all further^{proceedings C-CNo 1262 of 2019 on the file of I} ;i;;;; ioaitionat senior^{civil Judgecourt Ranga Reddy Districtat L.B.Nagar, arised out} oi Crirnu in^{F.l.R.No.769itZO1€ dated15.10.2018 on the file of the Gachibowli} iolice Station,^{Cyberabad Commissioneratepending disposal of the Quash} Petition.

¶18

i i l I

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHD ANWAR ALl, Advccate for the petitioners and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the l\dditional public prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

, I

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI}

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITIO^{N No.9891ot 2024}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition is^{filed under Section 528 of} Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha^{Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS,} 2023') seeking^{quashmentof the proceedingsin C C No'1262 of} 2019 on the file of the 4-ll^{Additional JuniorCivil Judge-cum-X} Additional Judicial Magistrate^{of First Class, Ranga Reddy at} Kukatpally against the^{petitioners/accused Nos..land 2.} 2. Heard Mr. Mohd.Anwar Ali,^{learned counsel for the} petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao^{Veeramalla'learned Additional} Public Prosecutor appearing^{for the respondent No.1-State.}

¶26

The petitioners are accused^{in C.C.No.1262of 2019 for the} offences under Sections^{447,427 and 506 of lPC.}

¶27

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners would submitthat} though the^{petitioners are resolvedto face the proceedings,their} presence before the trial Court^{on each adjournment is causing} severe difficulty and^{affecting their employment.Therefore,} prayed for dispensing with their^{personal appearance unlessit is} required for the^{proceedingsand such directionwould redress}

t t

w_,*E

\ \ ; .:-:;-..,r., t!-

¶32

their grievanc,e. However, undertakes to personally appear as and when directed by the trial Court.

¶33

5 Learne,J Additional public prosecutor submlts that there is no specific objection for the prayer, however pleaded for a direction for appearance of the petitioner on the material stages in the proceedinEs.

¶34

Having regard to the submissions, subject to the petitioners' appearance through their counsel on every adjournment and their personal appearance as and when directed by the Court, the personal presence of the petitioners in the proceedings of C.C.No.1262 of 2019 on the file of the 4_ll Additional Junior Civil Judge_cum_X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally, is dispensed with. Additionally it is specified that any lapse in abiding the above conditions would automatically annul this order.

¶35

With this direction, this Criminal petition is disposed of.

¶36

Miscellarreous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

¶38

D/ AMY s RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

'1. The XXV Metropr:litan Magistrate, Kukatpally at hanthi Nagar, Cyberabad.

¶41

The Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station,^Cyberabad

¶42

¶43

3 One CC to SRt. MOHD ANWAR ALt Advocate tOpaJCI

¶44

Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

Two CD Copies

GR/gh

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/OilzOzS

ORDER

CRLP.No.9891 of 2024

.,---.i-.-'
.Z-1 ...''
li
,.1
).l 00 lr,t W
+

¶53

DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶54

fi>
'.l

A. Raghu Ram v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Raghu Ram 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

Yeradesi Shankar Venkata Raju, Vs The State of Telangana

Arbindi Kiranmayi @ Ch Kiranmayi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Aarey Yashwanth Vs The State of Telangana

Chittari Srinath Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Datrika Jaya Sree Vs Bodkam Venkata Rama Rao

Mohammed Rayeed @ Rayees Vs The State of Telangana