← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/8620/2015dismissed as infructuous

A.V. Ramana v. Dr. C. Narayana Reddy And Another

2023-11-03E.V. Venugopal5 pages

[ 32e9 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8620 OF 2015 Between:

A.V. Ramana, S/o. A.R. Chandrasekhar, aged 54 years, Occ State Secretary, Janata Dal (United) Party, R/o. 152, B.K. Enclave, Miyapur, Hyderabad

...Petitioner/Accused

AND

1. Dr. C. Narayana Reddy, S/o Late Malal Reddy, Aged Major, O_cc President of Andhra Saraswathi Parishath, R/o. Plot No.48, Film Nagar Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant

2. The State of Telangana.,rep. by its P.P., High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh ...RespondenU ResPondent Petitron under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 24-11-2014 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 3470 of 2014 in Cr.No. 67 of 2012 of Police Station, Sultan Bazar (C.C.No. 1001 ot 2014 on the file of ll Additional Chief Mekopolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) to extent of not taking cognizance of the offence against A2 and also the order passed in Crl. R.P.No. 12'1 of 2015 dt.

09-07-2015 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in confirming the order of the ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and consequently direct the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence against 42 and try along with other accused. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of MiS S. TULASI DAS, Advocate for the Petitioner (Not present) and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri l. Gopala Reddy' Advocate for the Respondent No.

t-.

THI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.862O OF 2015 ORDER:

The present criminal petition is fiIed to quash the order dated 24-ll-2o14 passed in Crl.M.P.No.347O of 2Ol4 in Cr.No.67 of 2Ol2 of police station, Sultal Bazar which was subsequently numbered as C.C.No.lOOl of 2Ol4 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the extent of non taking cognizance of the offence against A2 and also the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.l2l of 2015 dated 09.O7.2015 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in confirming the order of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and consequently direct the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence against A2 and try along with other accused and pass such other order as deems fit and proper.

2.

There is no representation on behalf of petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent is present and by providing a copy of order in Crl.P.No.6486 of 2015 and the proceedings in C.C. l0Oi of 2Ol4 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad would submit that the

said proceedings in C.C.No. 1OO1 of 2Ol4 are quashed and the petitioner has been acquitted against alleged offence. 4.

Now the point for consideration is - Whether the proceedings in Criminal Revision petition No.12l of 2015 dated 09.O7.2015 on the frle of Metropolitan Sessions Judge would survive or not in confirming the order in C.C.No.1OO1 of 2014?

5.

This Court opines that once the criminal petition has been allowed and quashed by this Court the subsequent proceedings against the proposed accused will not survive. 6.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is present and would also concede to the fact that once the criminal petition has been allowed and the proceedings are quashed in CC.No.1O0L of 2Ol4 by this Court, the subsequent proceedings against revision petitioner to array and conduct the proceedings against proposed accused No.2 will not survive and therefore seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

7.

This Court, having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent and Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the orders passed by this

Court in Crl.P.No.6486 of 2015, is of the view that the prayer sought for in this criminal petition is misconceived, as the main proceedings has already been quashed and therefore the question of taking cognizance of A2 in the CC does not arise. 8.

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent and Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Criminal Petition as infructuous 9.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. sd/- v. HAR| PRA$AD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcroN dY".* To,

1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The ll Additional Chief.Mekopoiitan Magistrate, Nampaily, Hyderabad.

3. The Station House Officer, Suttan Bazai poticd Stailon, iiyO6rabio.

4. One CC to M/S. Tulasi Das. Advocate IOpUCI

5. One CC to Sri l. Gopal Reddv, Advocatb fOpUbt

6. Two CCs to the Public Pros-ecutor, High'Court ior the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

7. Two CD Copies \ PNONJB "V},-

I HIGH COURT DATED:0311112023 l_I 2 B i[S ii:,i

ORDER

CRLP.No.8620 ot 2015 * * DE^!.,1TC DISMISSING THE CRLP AS INFRUCTUOUS \3 v >*