Gali Vasudev v. The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.6779 of 2015 Between:

Gali Vasudev and another ..... PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 30.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 2.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRL.P.No.6779 of 2015 ORDER:

The petitioners, who are A-1 and A-2, seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.584 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

On a complaint given by respondent No.2 herein, a case in Crime No.85 of 2014 was registered against the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pochampally Police Station.

Eventually, after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid under the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and others in the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir and the same was numbered as C.C.No.584 of 2014. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State. A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet would clearly reveal a prima facie case against the petitioners and other accused for the aforesaid offences. The truth or

otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into in this petition and it can only be decided during the course of trial. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the matter at this stage by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. Instead it is better to allow the trial in the case to be expedited. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the contents of the charge sheet, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously without insisting the presence of the 2nd petitioner-A2 only on every date of hearing unless it feels that his presence is necessary for any specific purpose. However, the 1st petitioner-A1 shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing of the case.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J 30-07-2015 Gsn