Bandi Manoj v. The State Of Telangana,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1802 of 2017 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/accused, who is aggrieved of the order, dated 28.02.2017, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, passed in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2017 in S.C.No.376 of 2015, whereby the learned judge returned the said miscellaneous petition filed on 13.02.2017, seeking discharge of the petitioner/accused.
2.
I have heard the submissions of Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, and of the learned Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State of Telangana, at the stage of admission. I have perused the material record.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the application in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner seeking his discharge from the case and that after the said application was registered by the trial Court, the same was erroneously returned without passing an order either rejecting or accepting it on merits and, therefore, the petitioner/accused is aggrieved.
4.
A perusal of the material record including the impugned order would bring to the fore the following facts: 'The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the accused framed a charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and then read over & explained the said charge to the accused and on that the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At that stage, the trial Court noted that aforestated MP seeking discharge was filed after the charge was framed, and hence, returned the said application.
MSRM, J CRLRC No.1802 of 2017 5.
In view of the said facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the petition filed for discharge, on its merit, by setting aside the order returning the application. 6.
In the considered view of this Court, the trial Court ought not to have returned the miscellaneous petition filed seeking discharge and ought to have passed an order, on merits, either rejecting or accepting the said application, as the said application once registered and numbered cannot be returned and the question of returning such application generally does not arise for consideration once such application is numbered and entertained. Be that as it may, any order at this stage allowing this revision and remanding the matter for consideration of the said application filed seeking discharge, would be of no avail to the petitioner and would not inure for his benefit in the light of the fact that a charge has already been framed even before filing the petition for discharge by the petitioner/accused. On the above analysis, this Court finds that the Revision Case can be disposed of at the stage of admission with appropriate observations.
7.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of rejecting the Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2017 filed by the petitioner/accused seeking discharge by modifying the order of return passed by the Court below, however, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedies, which the law permits. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI July 3, 2017 Note:- Registry is directed to transmit the original docket order filed along with this revision to the trial court for its perusal at the appropriate stage, if necessary.
{B/o} Lmv