Smt. Bokka Laxmi v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-08. Smt. Bokka Laxmi v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5308 OF 2020 Between: 1. Smt Bokka Laxmi, Wo. B. Prabhakar Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Plot No. 48, Sri Sai Nagar Colony, Thrukayamjal Village, Abullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Bokka Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. B. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Plot No. 48, Sri Sai Nagar Colony, Thrukayamjal Village, Abullapurmet IVandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. Smt Sreevidya, W/o. K. Govinda Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Fyo. H. No. 10- 1 1 2l A, Vinayaka Nagal, Balapoor, Hyderabad. 4. Kambalapally Govinda Reddy, S/o. Sreeram Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 10-1121A, Vinayaka Nagal, Balapoor, Hyderabad. 5. Pushpamma, W/o. late K. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H. No. 8-7-951612, Plot No. 322, P. R. Teachers Colony, near B.
D. Reddy Gardens, Vanasthalipuram, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. 6. Srija Reddy, D/o. late K. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 22 years, Occ. B. Tech Student, Rl/o. H. No. 8-7-951612, Plot No. 322, P. R. Teachers Colony, near B. D. Reddy Gardens, Vanasthalipuram, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. 7. Tejasree, D/o. late K. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 22 yearc, Occ. B. Tech Student, R/o. H. No. 8-7-951612, Plot No. 322, P. R. Teachers Colony, near B. D. Reddy Gardens, Vanasthalipuram, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. B. Raji Reddy, S/o. late Venkat Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Rl/o. Thurkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 9 ANO 1. The State of Telangana, Through Women Police, Police Station , Mahabubnagar, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Telangana State, Hyderabad. ... RepondenURespondent 2. Smt Pothula Keerthi, W/o. Bokka Srikanth Reddy, Aged about 30 years, R/o. H. No.
10-1 5, Vijayanagar Colony, lvlahabubnagar Town and District. ... RespondenUDefacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C. C No. 32 of 2020 dated 24-08-2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Mahabubnagar, against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 9. l. A. NO: 'l OF 2020 Petition 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C. C No. 32 ot 2020 dated 24- 08-2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Mahabubnagar including the appearance of the Accused pending the disposal of the present Crl. Petition in the interest of the justice.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Lokirev Preetham Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of the Respondent No. 2 not appearing in person or by Advocate. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 53O8 of 2O2O OBDPR Thc pxrsr:nl (lrirninerl I)crition is filcd under Scction 482 ol Cr. l). C. seel<ir-,g for quashing of proceedings in CC No. 32 of 2020 {)n thc iilc oi the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malrabr-rbnagnr, rcgistcrcrl on the basis of Crime No. 61 of 2Ol9 of Women Police Station, Mahabubnagar for the offences punishable r"rndcr Scctions 498-A, 506, 504 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of l)ou,ry l)rohibiti<:n Act, rvherein the petitioners are arrayed as accuscd Nos. 2 to 9. )..
I-lcard Sri l,okircv Preetham Reddy, learned counsel Ibr thc l)ctitionors/n. 2 b 9 and learned Additional Public ProsecuLor zrl)p! ral ing li;r' iI'rc lirsl r(jspondoIll--Stale . [)erused thc rnatcrial placcd on record. 3. With l. he conscnt of thc learned counscl appearing lbr the ihc'climini,rl pcliiion is takr:n up lor hci. rring through Vidco 1ra:-tics, Conlcrcncing in Lht: virtual Court today, i. e. , 08. 12. 2O2O. 1l . 'lhr: lcarned cor-lnsel for the petitioners would submit that llrough thc prcscrlt crirninal pctiLir. rrr is filed sccking for quashing of l. hc proceedirrgs in CC No. 32 oI 2020, howevcr, he is restricting the rclicf sought lor in thc: prescnt petition to the limited extent of this coLlrl grilnting r:xornpiion lo the petitioners/ A. 2 t. o A. 9 froin 'lhc a. lppcarancc in lhC i-. ib()vc CC bcic|c Iht: conccnred tria] Court. lr':arncd counscl lbr thc petitior)ers woulcl further submit. that cluring the invesLigaf.
ion stage, the petitioners enjoyed sjmilar rcljcl I:1, ,,,irl ur-' of thc or clt:r of rlris (lourt in Crirninili Pctilion No. I 336 ol 2020, c:lat. cd 25. O2. 2O2O. 5. Opposing the above said submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behall of thc first re spondent-stuttc woulcl submit that the respondent polir:c upon recciving thc complaint caused investigation and also filed cl-rargc sh<:ct u,hcrcin thc allegations madc against thc petitioncrs havc bccn conclusivch' brought out and therelore, they are requircd to bc arppr--ar bclirrc thc conr:erned Magistrate Court during the trial. 6.
I{aving regard to the rivai submissions madc ir1' tl-rc k:arncd counsel for thc parties, without going inro thc nlcrits ol thc mattcr, this Court is of the view that instcad of this Court ciLltcr' considering the grounds raised seeking for quershing ol CC No,32 ctf 2O2O or thc grouncis Lrrgcd in support oI lhc submission sccl<ing excmption for appearance of the petitioners bcforc thc conccrncd tlial Court, the petitioners can be directed to take steps sceking cxcmption for their appearancc by making ncccssnr. y applic:ltions before the concerned trial Court either ir-r thc ibrm ol'a Sp<:r:ial Vakalat or under Rule 37 of the Criminal Ilules of Practice, as may be advised. Upon the petitioners/A. 2 to A. 9 merking su<,'h applicat. ions, the trial Court shall considcr lhc sarrnc (rn lls ()\\ n mcrit. 7. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposcd of. Miscellaneous petitions, if anl', pending in this crirrirriri pctition shall stand closed. Sd/. K.
AM ASSISTANT REGI ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Mahabubnagar' iil" Sirt. " f"u"se Officer, Wo'"n Police' Police Station' Mahabubnagar 2 pr6ii" pro. ". uior, High Court for the State of 2 ii,i,"a-cl t" in" nooitionar Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Preetham Reddy, Advocate [oPUC] 4 o;; iC to'sri toxlrev 5 Two CD CoPies MMK \ \. 4_ i HIGH COURT TVKJ DATED:0811212020 1 tiL s TA o o 18 DEC ZUo z o _? - * * c I ORDER CRLP. No. 5308 ol 2020 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION o \-t
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.