Kondrathi Naresh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kondrathi Naresh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint along with all supporting and relevant documents before the learned trial Court, which is directed to consider it on merits and in accordance with law; revision otherwise not entertained; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Revision Case challenging the order dated 03-12-2024 in C.F.No.181 of 2024, by which the petitioner's private complaint (praying for reference to the police for investigation and final report or for taking cognizance) was dismissed, deserves to be allowed.

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the petitioner failed to file relevant documents along with the private complaint so as to arrive at a prima facie finding against respondents Nos.2 to 11; the learned trial Court rightly declined to refer the matter for investigation, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint along with all supporting and relevant documents before the learned trial Court; on such filing, the learned trial Court is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS 2023 against the order dated 03-12-2024 in C.F.No.181 of 2024 of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, dismissing the petitioner's private complaint and declining to refer it to the concerned police station for investigation and final report or to take cognizance — Held: on perusal of the record, the petitioner failed to file relevant documents along with the private complaint to arrive at a prima facie finding against respondents Nos.2 to 11, and the learned trial Court rightly declined to refer the matter for investigation; this Court was not inclined to interfere with the trial Court's order. However, in view of the request of learned counsel, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint along with all supporting and relevant documents, and the trial Court is directed to consider such fresh complaint on merits and in accordance with law. Criminal Revision Case disposed of; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

13257¹

I { t : I I I I

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE^{TWENTY SEVENTH DAYOFFEBRUARY} T\IVO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEJUVVADI SRIDEVI}

CRIMINAL REVIS^{ION CASENO:158 0F 2025}

Criminal Revision^{Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS' 2023} againsttheorderdaledO3tl2l2O24madeinC.F.No.l8,lo,f2024onthefileofthe Court of the Principal^{Judicial Magistrate of First Classat Miryalaguda'}

Between:

Kondrathi Naresh^{Kumar, S/o-K.Kasaiah, Aged about 33 vears' Occ Private} '#;t;;;; R/" H no a-je, ;.iilr;iil;ilv Vittis", n"'nnafet Mandar' Yadadri Bhoingiri District

...Petitioner/ComPlainant

AND

The State of^{Telangana,Rep by its Public} Prosecutor High^{Court of} .. . ResPondent

Telangana,^HYderabad.

2 Akshara Townshrps^{Private Limited,D{o-^2^i-.sqqrSecond Floor'Aadarsha} 'i"i"',i"]orj"roui-circte, uanimtionta-s06001_, Warangal Urban, Telangana 5i;i;:';tbili;^{bit.-to'-"u,-promoter PeralasriniasaRao'}

a Akshara Townships^{Private Limited Headoffice'H No 1-8-571' Ground.Floor'} 6iiilftltr.?rlg",,ii;;i;;'i;I,'eira'i'0"*,^{Hanamkonda' Hanamkonda} District.

4 Kotaoala Venkateshwarlu.^{S/o.Not knownAged about.40years,occ Branch} ilffiffi A"k;il;;i;fi;hips^{Private Limited-'and Akshara chits'}

5 Akshara Townships^{PrivateLimited} '^{H No1 -7-1 385' Groundfloor'Advocates} Cofonv, H"nrrnkdnda-506001^{, WarangalUrban'}

6, Srinivas^{Rao Perala' S/o.Bhimrao,Age.dabout 49-years'} Occ.Chairman,hanamkonda" Hi;.ii.N".i:lo-zos,^'seli Vaddepallv- X Road' Subedari 506001.

Occ Akshara

1. Rajender^PuPPala, S/o.Chandraiah,^{Aged about 47} -years' HanamkondatownshiPs^Director, -ruoU.trto.ZS-Z-26,- Vishnupuri Colony 506001.

I i i I

-e; /-F=EE7

B. Perala Sri Vjl/a,, Wo.srinivas Rao Perala,^Agedabout ':17^{year$, Occ} presently wcrl< ng as LIC Health club Director R/o.H.No.1 99, Rangapoor, lvlelugupalle l,/: ndal, Warangal District.

Soorineni l..onrial Rao, S/o.Rajeshwar^{Rao, Aged abc,utzl'5 years, Occ} Akshara tcv,rnr;lt ps Director, R/o.H.No.1-99,^{Rangapor, MelugupallelVlandal,} Warangal D st-i:t.

l0.Aluvala Vara F rasad., S/o.Not known,^Agedabout '10^{years Occ Akshara} Townships^ji-ectors, R/o.H.No.'1-99, Rangapor,^{[.4elugurlalle [\ilandal,} Warangal D st-i :t.

1 1. Gone Rarnesh. S/o.Venkata Narsaiah, Aged about^{,15 years Occ Akshara} Township:; lJ rec.tor, R/o. H. No.2-1-508, Second Floor Adarsha Colony Circle, Hanamkorda 516001, Warangal Urband District.

...Respondents 2 to 11lAr.;cused 1 to 10

Counsel for the P,etit oner : Sri Hari Kishan Kudikala

Counsel for the Respondents : Additional Public Prosecutor

The Court made, the lollowing:

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{JUWADISRIDEVI} CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASE No.158 of 2025}

ORDER

Challenging the^{impugnedorder dated 03J22024} passed in C.F.No.1B1 of^{2024 by the learned Principal Judicial} tt/lagistrateofFirstClassatMiryalaguda,thisCriminalRevision Case is filed. By^{the impugned order, the private complaint filed} by the petitioner to^{refer the complaint to concernedPolice} Station for investigation^{and final reportor to take cognizance} was dismissed.

Heard Mr. Hari Kishan^{Kudikala, learned counsel for} the^petitioner and^{the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for} the State-Respondent^{No.1. Perusedthe material on record'}

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submittedthat the} learned trial Court^{has erroneously declined to referthe private} complaint of the^{petitionerfor investigation.The petitioner has} got sufficient material to^{prove the guilt of the unofficial} respondents before^{the learned trial Court.But the learned trial} Court failed to.examine^{the matterin proper perspectiveand} without app{yqS its^{judicial mind,dismissed the petition'}

\

2

Therefore. he prayed to aflow this criminar Re,risior case. Alternertivell,. he sought for a liberty to file af.esh private complarinl br:fore the learned trial Court.

i)rr perusal of the record, it is to be, notecJ that the petitioner l.r as failed to file relevant documents alorrg with private c,trnltlaint to arrive at a prima facie finding aga inst the responrient \os.2 to 11 and the learned triar cour har,; righfly declinerj to^-e1sr the matter for investigation. Thr:refcre, this Court is; no'. i,-rclined to interfere with the orders par;sec by the learned tria Oourt. However, in view of the request rrade by the learn,:C r:ounsel for the petitioner, this Cour: is of the conside.el ,l[,inion to grant liberty to the petitioner to fiie afresh complairrt ;along with all supporting and relevant docrrments before the le,:rr.ned trial Court. On such filing of fresh con tplaint, the learrrect 'rial Court is directed to consider the sanre, on merits and irr as6e162r.t.. with law.

05 \titlr the above observations, this Crimina I Rr,rvisron Case is clispor;ed of

J

I I l

Miscellaneous applications,^{if any pending,shall also stand}

closed

SD/- MOHD.^TSMAIL DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

I

//TRUE^GOPY//

! SECTION^OFFICER

To,

21 The Two CCs PrinciPal^{to the Judicial Public MagProseistrate of First cutor, State of ClassTelangana,} Miryalaguda^{High Court Buildings,} at Hvderabad^(OUT) 3 6J';;; il^{g"ti ritt''n Kudikala'Advocate[oPUC]} 4 Two CD^CoPies DL/gh

V

: l I l

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710212O115

ORDER

..1: ':' ':
l.,t" rl : sra Ia
c f,
O 17 ,li.n
J
.i

I )

CRLRC.No.158 ol 2025

CRIMINAL REVI$lOt\t CASE tS D|SPOSED OF

1
() b <br>