Disposed¶48

Lingannpally Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2026CRLP/1473/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLP 1473 of 2026, Telangana High Court, 06.02.2026, Justice J Sreenivas Rao; S.528 BNSS petition for time-bound disposal / delay in criminal trial; complainant Lingampally Ramesh; Crime No.607 of 2017, Sections 325 & 34 IPC; C.C.No.751 of 2017 before I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri, pending since 2017; direction to conclude trial and dispose expeditiously; proforma respondents, notice dispensed with; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri, to conclude the trial and dispose of C.C.No.751 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible; parties to cooperate with the trial court without seeking undue adjournments; miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶48

Lingannpally Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should fix a time frame and direct the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri, to conclude the trial and dispose of C.C.No.75l of 2017, pending since 2017.

¶39

Court's answer

Without expressing any view, the Court directed the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri, to conclude the trial and dispose of C.C.No.751 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

It is made clear that the parties shall cooperate with the trial court without seeking undue adjournments.

¶46

Key takeaways

Notice in respect of respondent Nos.2 to 4 was dispensed with, as the petition seeks only expeditious disposal of the C.C. and those respondents are arrayed only as proforma respondents.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (single judge, Justice J. Sreenivas Rao), Criminal Petition No.1473 of 2026, decided 06.02.2026. Filed under Section 528 of BNSS by Lingampally Ramesh, complainant in Crime No.607 of 2017 (Sections 325 read with Section 34, IPC 1860), seeking fixation of a time frame for disposal of C.C.No.75l of 2017 - pending since 2017 and ripe for arguments before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (A. Moses, Ayanki Kalyani, Arokya Mary) were arrayed only as proforma respondents and notice to them was dispensed with. Without expressing any view, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial and dispose of the C.C. as expeditiously as possible, made clear that the parties shall cooperate without seeking undue adjournments, and disposed of the petition; miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. No precedent cited; no quantum involved.

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1473 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Lingampally Ramesh, S/o Late Bala Pochaiah, Aged About 37^{Year, Occ.} Private Employee R/o Flat No. 17, Krupadeep Apartment No.2, Surya^Nagar colony Safilguda, Malkajgiri- Hyderabad^47.

¶9

...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

A. Moses, S/o Late Yesuratnam Aged about 49, Occ. Government^Employee R/o Balaji Nagar, Yapral

¶13

Smt Ayanki Kalyani, Wo A. Raju Aged about 36^{Year, Occ.HousewifeR/o} Balaji Nagar, Yapral

¶14

Smt. Arokya Mary, Wo Moses Aged about 39 Year,^{Occ. Housewife R-/o Flat} No.4, Krupadeep Apartments -ll Surya Nagar, Neredmet,^{Malkajgiri Mandal}

¶15

...RESPONDENT/A.1 TO A-3

¶16

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 pleasedto} direct the I Additional Judicial Magiskate of^{FirstClass at t\Iechal, Malkajgiri, to} dispose of C.C.No.No. 75 of 2O1g within one^{Month or such timeas this Hon'ble} Court deems fit and^proper,

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the arguments of Sri M RATHAN} SINGH , Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr^{M.Ramachandra Reddy,Additional} Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^{No1 .}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI, \NGANA AT IIYDERABAD

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENI, .S RAO

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1473 of2026

Datez 06.02.2026

Between:

Lingampally Ramesh

..Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, represented by its Public prosect ,r>r, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad and tlree others.

¶29

lespondents

¶30

Order

¶31

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking for fixarirn ol a time

¶32

frame for disposal ol C.C.No.75 l of 2017 on the ite of the I

¶33

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal l/ ilkajgiri.

¶34

Heard Mr. M. Rathan Singh, leamed counsel for. he petitioner and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, leamed Addit onal public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1.

¶35

Notice in respect of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is distr ,nsed with on

¶36

the ground that rhe petitioner has filed the present cri rinal petition seeking expeditious disposal of C.C.No.75l of 2017. rnd he is r.rot

¶37

)

¶38

seeking any reliefagainst respondent Nos.2 to 4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are anayed only as proforma respondents.

¶39

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 and others, and based on the said complaint, Crime No.607 of 2017 was registered lor the offence punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The Investigating Officer, after conducting the investigation, filed the final report and the same was numbered as C.C.No.75l of 2017 which is pending on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal Malkajglri and the said case is riped for arguments and it is pending since 2017. Unless this Court directs the Trial Court to conclude the trial and for disposal of the C.C., by fixing time limit, the petitioner wilt be put to great hardship.

¶40

Leamed Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are several old cases are pending before the Trial Court and the^petitioner ls not entitled to seek fixation of time limit for disposal of the case.

¶41

In view of the above said submissions made by the respective parties, this Court without expressing any view, directed the leamed Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchat Malkajgiri, to \ \

¶42

¶43

¶44

conclude the trial^{and to disposeof the C.C'No'75 1 of 2017 as}

¶45

expeditiously as^possible.

¶46