Y. Anil Kumar v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
- Bench
- E V VENUGOPAL
Outcome
Dismissed
CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Recording the above said submissions, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ,,?il'#"#Z'l'+[X'k /'IrRuE coPY// s'"ffi"'"'* tit'ia*Tl}qi,$liflxfl;,r,Tr[ffi ,ffi *l:::*:'fl[,",", I *:33Ji"'i,il: ";H 5. Two CD coPtes touTl BJLB/KR ) l I I I I…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Section 482 of cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn oi G|.oundt of Criminal Petition' the High Court may be oleased to extend the common order of interim stay in crl P No 1512..o.1 2023 iffi ilgrifi, ,ntii rr.g,", orders or to any other convenient date possible. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitio-n and upon heaiing the arguments of Sri Maneni Rama iro, nJro""t" for tne petitioner 'and of tui r' Ganesh' learned Asst -Public F'.-"""rtot on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and Sri R' Rama Brahmma' learned counsel for Respondent No'2 The Court made the following: ORDER l I I i I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENT]GOPAL CRIMINALP ETITION No.l512 OF 202:l
ORDER:
This Criminal Petitions is filed under SectiorL 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in M.C.No. 203 of ',t022,, oo the hle of thc learned II Additional Family aorn, gCl{l Complex, Hyderabad.
Heard Sri Rama Rao Maneni, learned coun sel for the petitioner, Sri E,. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 State and Sli R' Rama Brahmma, leamed counsel for respondent No.2.
Duling the course of the hearing, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 fairly submits that the cause in the Criminal Petition does not survive, as respondent No'2 had filed a Memo dated 24.08.2022 before the trial Court seeking pt:rmission to withdraw the M.C.No.203 of 2022 as not pressed, which was subsequently allowed by the learned trial Court. I I 2 EW,J CrLP.No-1512 oJ 2O23
Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor did not oppose the submissions made by the leamed counsel for respondent No.2.
Operative part
Recording the above said submissions, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ,,?il'#"#Z'l'+[X'k /'IrRuE coPY// s'"ffi"'"'* tit'ia*Tl}qi,$liflxfl;,r,Tr[ffi ,ffi *l:::*:'fl[,",", I *:33Ji"'i,il: ";H 5. Two CD coPtes touTl BJLB/KR ) l I I I I : I i l 1 I i \ I HIGH COURT DATED:16/04/2025 l I I I I i ! i I ORDER CRLP.No.1512 of 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS .r,4 \ !)' ,i- s r4 'i j 1tt JUL * o^ * l{l{OL W
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.