Devara Srikanth Reddy & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Othersr
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
4. Devara Srikanth Reddy, S/o Narsimha Reddy Aged 33 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Chevella Village and Mandal R.R. District.
5. Malgari Lalitha, Wo Madhava Reddy Aged 47 years, Occ. House Wife R/o Malla Reddyguda village, Chevella Mandal R.R District.
6. Devara Sahithi, Wo Srikanth Reddy Aged 25 years, Occ. House Wife R/o H.No. 5-27 Chevella Village and Mandal R.R. District.
7. Devara Swapna, Wo. Sridhar Reddy aged 30 years, Occ. Huse wife R/o H.NO. 5-27 Chevella Village and Mandal R.R. District.
8. Bandari Venkat Reddy, S/o Late Venkat Reddy Aged 35 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o H.No. 5-27 Chevella Village and Mandal R.R. District.
9. Devara Ananth Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged 50 year, Occ. Agriulture R/o H.NO. 7-99 Chevella Village and Mandal R.R. District. ...PETrTlONER/ACCUSED(S) ANO
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
Sri Katika Shankar @ Dharamkar Shankar, S/o Chotelal aged 60 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 9-2-284, Lalnagar House, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 2 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiorr, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH the proceedings in C.C.No. 181 of 2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chevella R.R. t)istrict against the petrtioners/Accu:;ed Nos. 2 to 5,7 to 10 and 12 in the intere;t of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitior, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings includinli appearance of the petitioners / Accrlsed Nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 10 and 12 in C.C.N,I. .lgl of 20.16 on the file of Judicial First class Magistrate, chevella R.R. District pending drsposal of the main Crl Petition This Petrtion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the JVlemorandum of Grounds of Crintinal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHD GULAM RASOOI-, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy the Asst. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Responc ent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ;t I I 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURINDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.S 618 0F 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frled by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.181 of 2016, on the Iile of Judicia-l First Class Magistrate, Chevella, R.R.District.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekanalda Reddy,' learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.
The only ground raised by the petitioners is that no affidavit was filed along with the private complaint in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastawa And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Othersr.
The complaint was hled in the year, 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to say as to what prejudice is caused if the affidavit was not frled along with the private complaint. The ground of not filing affidavit when the private complaint was hied cannot be entertained, ' lzors.y o scc zsz 2 after the charge sheet was laid which is five .,.ears ago. The said ground cannot form basis to quash the r:harge sheet at this juncture and no useful purpose would t,e served if the complainant is now asked to approach the Court and frle afhdavit.
Learned counsel further submits that the suit filed before the Court below concluded in favour of the accused. Accused ralso succeeded in the 1"t appeal and also in the 2"d appeal thereafter. The case was not prosecuted by the defacto complainant in the civil Court and land belongs to the accused.
Except stating that civil proceedings went in favour of the accused, not a single document is hled befrrre this Court.
In the said circumstances, the Crimilal Petition is disposed off, granting liberty to the petitioners herein to seek discharge before the trial Court, if charges are not framed till date, on the basis of succeeding in the civ 1 proceedings. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stald closed. To //TRUE COPY// SdETiOF-. tsrrrAtl $TANT REGISTRAR ,i '$ ECTION OFFICER T
1. The Chief .tudicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, Rl.District 2. The Statior House Officer, police Station, Chevella, RR.Dist.
3. Two CCs to the PUBLTC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI MOHD GULAM RASOOL Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies \ h{y HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 I I I i t ORDER CRLP.No.5618 of 2019 1 /e h t I 10 SlP n6 i t I -t" CRIMINAL PETITION DISPOSED OF )5 % 9c
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.