Sri S.Venkatesh, Nalgonda Dt., v. Smt. S.Naveneetha, Rr.Dt And ANR,Rep Pp.,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVIS loN CASE NO: 1502 OF 2017 criminal Revision case Under section 397 & 401 of cr.P.c. against the Judgment' in M.C.No.'l 19 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judges Court-cum- XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judges Court-cum- lll Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri dated '16.03.2017 Between:

1. Sri S.Venkatesh s/o late Rajaiah ..Petitioner/Respondent AND

1. Smt S.Naveneetha Wio S.Venkatesh Occ; Housewife No 4-3-2411, Nacharam, Ranga Reddy District.

2. State of Telangana rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. . . . RespondenVPetitioner CrlRC MP No.2429 of 2017 Petition under Section 482 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 16.03.2017 in MC No.119 of 2015 on the file XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court-cum-XVl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court-cum- lll Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH.Ravi, Advocate for SRI.T.M.K.Chaitanya, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER

--;----------7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1502 of 2Ot7 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the order in M.C.No.l19 of I I 20 i5, dated 16.O3.2OtT passed by the learned XVI Additional District ald Sessions Judge,s Court-cum-XVl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,s Court-cum_III Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri.

2. Sri Ch. Ravi, learned counsel representing Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petirioner, fairly submitted that the parties to this criminal revision case have settled issues between themselves. Therefore, no further orders are required and hence seeks to dismiss the same as infructuous..

3.

Learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent-State present and takes no objection to the same.

L 4.

In view of the above submissions, the criminal revision case is dismissed as infructuous.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case, shall also stand dismissed SD/- K.SAILESHI ,,, DEPUTY REGISTRARi5 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XVI Additional District and sessions Judges court-cum- XVI Additional tVletropolitan sessions Judges court-cum- lll Additional Family court' Ranga Reddy District at lValkajgiri

2. The Judge, Family Court , Ranga Reddy district at L B Nagar'

3. One CC to Mr.T.M.K.Chaitanya, Advocate 4.TwoCCstoPublicProsecutorHighCourtofJudicatureatHyderabad(oUT)

5. Two CD Copies kvon NS ${+

HIGH COURT DATED:07.12.2023 iih.', ',i,

ORDER

t s ( GRLRC.No.1502 ot 2017 $( z 1i fiAB :zrl;zt ot PA * ) o rc DISMISSING THE CRL.RC AS INFRUCTUOUS ?-ou\rq 4$o