Disposed

Kommu Jagan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2026CRLP/1353/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of C.C.No.8267 of 2019 but counsel restricted the prayer to dispensing with his personal appearance before the trial court. The Additional Public Prosecutor did not object. The High Court dispensed with the petitioner's presence, subject to representation through counsel on every date and appearance when specifically directed.

What did the court decide?

Personal appearance of accused No.5 dispensed with in C.C.No.8267 of 2019, subject to representation by counsel and appearance when directed by trial court.

Kommu Jagan Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1353 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kommu Jagan, S/o Late Danaiah Age. 40 yrs, Occ: Electrical cable contractor, R/o. Mukhtapur village, Pochampally mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.5

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor T.S. High Court.

¶12

B. H. Lakshmi Narayana Murthy, S/o Late Venkateshwarlu Age. 58, Occ: Bank Employee, Rl/o. House No. 5 - 58, Buddhanagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶13

...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in connection with the CC.No. 8267 ol 2019, pending on the file of the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad and the same may be quashed against the Petitioner/Accused No-5 and to quash the same and pass

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2026

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 5 in connection with the CC.No. 8267 of 2019, Pending on the file of the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad pending finalization of the Criminal petition, and pass

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri R.Ramakrishna, couser representing M/s. JMS Law Firm Advocates And Associates for the petitioner and sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additionar pubric prosecutor for the State of rerangana on behalf of the Respondent No. r and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

H FO o AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO}

Date: 05.02.2026

Between:

Kommu Jagan

Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

¶28

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

¶29

T.S.High Court and another

¶30

.Respondents

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This Criminal Petition has been^{filed bythe}

¶33

petitioner/accused No.5 seeking to^quash the^{proceedingsin}

¶34

C.C.No.8267 of 2019, on^{the file of learnedVIt Additional Chief}

¶35

Metropolitan Magis trate at^Hyderabad.

¶36

Heard Mr.R.Ramakrishna, leamed counsel^{representingM/s}

¶37

JMS Law Firm Advocates and Associates, for the petitioner and

¶38

Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶39

for respondent No.l.

¶40

¶41

Though the criminal^{petition was filed seekingto quash the} proceedings in C.C.No.8267 of^{2Ol9 by raisingseveral grounds,} the leamed counsel for^{the petitioner restricted his prayer} requesting this Court to^{dispense with the appearance of the} petitioner/accused No.5 in C.C.No.8267^{of 2019, on the file of} learned Vll Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at} Hyderabad.

¶42

The learned Additional^{Public Prosecutor has not opposed} the submission^{made by the learnedcounsel for petitioner.}

¶43

[n view of the above submissions,^{and withoutexpressing} any opinion on the^merits of^{the case, the presenceof the} petitioner/accused No.5 in C.C.N1.8267^{of 2019, on the file of} leamed VII Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at} Hyderabad,^{is dispensedwith, subject to the condition that he shall} berepresentedthroughhiscounseloneachandeverydateof hearing.lfthepresenceofthepetitionerisrequired,heshall appearbeforethetrialCourt.[ncaseofhisnon-appearanceonthe specificdatefixedbythetrialCourtforhisappearance,thetrial

¶44

¶45

court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with

¶46

Iaw

¶47

6 Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶49

closed.

¶50

Sd/- A.SREENIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/

SECTION OFFICER

1- The Vll Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate Hyderabad.

¶56

The station House officer, porice station santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶57

ONE CC tO SRI. M/S JMS LAW FIRM ADVOCATES AND ASSOCIATES Advocate IOPUC]

¶58

4' Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor High court for the State of relangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI

¶59

Two CD Copies

ba kw

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0510212026

r' IHE S
oo
10 [iB rl?[
t

¶64

¶65

CRLP^{No.1353 of 2026}

¶66

DISPOSING^{OF THE CRIMINALPETITI} 6\ ') e.i K_q rol-fz-e

¶67

Kommu Jagan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kommu Jagan 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

Sajid Ali Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Paritala Devnath Raghavendra Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Abdul Hadi Shaheri alias Ma Hadi, Vs The State of Telangana

Bestha Adam Vs State of Telangana

Banoth Sakru Vs The State of Telangana

Medisetty Triveni, Vs The State of Telangana., Through S.H.O, P.S. Madhira Rural