Smt K Rajya Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K.LAKSHMAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-07. Smt K Rajya Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
,N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD , O' O+,I) E C E'\4 B E R JTi, 3 5Xi ilIiRA",fli. D PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K, LAKSHMAN CRIMIN AL PET ITION N O:6069. 6074 AND 6081 0F 2020 CRIMINAL PET|T|ON NO: 6069 OF 2020 Betwee n: Smt K. Raiya Lakshmi. WJ9. Kumar, Aged [,_Vrlay about 45 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No,i6-2-2zzneo. 'riXia {irdripj'i"r opp Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. petitione ... r/Accused No. 2 AND gf Tetangana, representedty its S H. O, patancheru potice Il:_S^tg-,g Station, >_angareooy urstnct, represented by pubric prosecutor, High cou,1 for the State of Telangana. ... Respondent Petition under section 438 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 release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest pending lnvestigation, lnquiry and Trial in connection with the Crime No.
415 of 2O2O on the file of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. K. Sesha Rajyam, Learned Senior Counsel representing I\/r. Koteswara Rao Mummaneni, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6074 OF 2020 Between: Smt K. Rajya Lakshmi, W/o. K. Vijay Kumar, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 16-2-2271190, Sardar Patel Nagar, Opp Nizampet Road, Kukatpally Hyderabad ... petitioner/Accused No. 3 AND 1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. Hyderabad Ravj Kumar, S/o. Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 32 years, Occ Business, Rio. Plot No. 54, NSL Colony, Beeramguda, Ameenpur, Sangareddy District. ...
RespondenUDe facto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 494 of 2020 on the file of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC insofar as the petitioner is concerned. cL- /- - I. A. N O:1 O F2 020 stated that in the circumstances Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying Petition under be pleased the High Court may minal Petition, of Grounds of Cri in the Memorandum file of of copy in Crime No 494 ol 2O2O on the with the filing certified to dispense Justice' y interest of District, in the Station, Sangaredd Patancheru Police t. A. NO: 20F 2020 tances stated PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.
P,Cprayingthatinthecircums intheN4emorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased tostayallfurtherproCeedings,includingthearrestofthepetitioner,inCrimeNo. 494 of2o2OonthefileofPatancheruPoliceStation,SangareddyDistrict'pendingthe above Quash Petition ThiS Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\,4emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of lvlrs K Sesha Rajyam, Learned Senior counsel representing tt4r. lt/. Koteswara Rao l\ilummaneni, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of the Respondent No. 2 not appearing in person or by Advocate. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6081 OF 2020 Between: Smt K. Rajya Lakshmi, W/o. K. Vijay Kumar, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Housewife, F/o. H. No. 16-2-2271190, Sardar Patel Nagar, Opp. Nizampet Road, Kukatpally' Hyderabad ... petitioner/Accused No. 4 ANO The State of Telangana, represented by its S. H.
O, Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. ... Responde nt Petition under Section 438 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 release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest pending lnvestigation, lnquiry and Trial in connection with the Crime No. 349 of 2020 on the file of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lr/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petjtion and upon hearing the arguments of lt4rs. K. Sesha Rajyam, Learned Senior Counsel representing lVr. [V. Koteswara Rao N,4ummaneni, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. I_AKSHT\IAN CRI r\IINAI, PL:I'ITI ON Nos .
606e 6071 ,\N D60 tir o[' 2020 CO u -\ION ORI) ER: Mrs. K. Rajya Lakshmi, accused No. 4, Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4 in Crime Nos. 4l 5 of 2020, 494 of 2020 and 349 of 2020 on the patancheru file of police Station, Sangareddy District filed Criminal Petition Nos. 6069, 6074 and 60gl of 2020 respectively seeking anticipatory bail in the said crimes. The ofI-ences alleged against her in Crime Nos. 415 and 494 of 2020 are under Sections _ I 120-8. 406 and 420 read rvirh 34 ollpC, while the offences alleged in Crime No. 349 o1' 2020 are under Sections 1208, 420, 447 and 42. 7 read rvith 3-t ol IPC 'I 2. he petitionel in the above criminal petitions is accused No. 4, accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 in the aforesaid crimes respectively, and hereinafter she will be refbned to as 'petitioner'. 3. Heard Mrs. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. M.
Koteswara Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. l\ CRIIIE, \o. ll5 of 2020: ^LLEG. \TIO\S 4. I'he allcgations levellecl against the pctitioner - accused No. 4 in the cornplaint dated 03. 10. 2020 by de. facto complainant - Suresh Ravi are that he r. vas intending to purchase agricultural lancl, and iVIr. KL,J of 2020 & batch Crl. P. Nos. 6069 him' Taking accused No'2 to Ratnakar introduced Ramana and accused No 4 and purchase the land' his intention to advantage of Nos'l and 2 tiaud on him Accordingly' accused other accused played to with each olher have sold the land and other accused in collusion yards on to an extent of 2783 square him in Survey No. 4(r3 02. 01.
2020 by leceiving an amoullt of Rs t'50 Cores, but in tact the said land r,r'as alreacly solcl vide docutle ut No' 117 ol 2020 Afte r corning to knor,v the sat'ue, whcn lie demanclcd the accused to rcturn the money, they did not retum, but oft'ered some other land and accordingly, agreed to allot the land in Survey No. 452 saying that it was a clear title and shown the report of Mandal Surveyor and conversion letter issued by the Tahsildar, and received further amount of Rs. 16. 00 lakhs in cash and Rs. 40. 00 lakhs by way of cheques. Believing their version, he purchased the land under document bearing No. 3379 of 2020. Subsequently, he came to know about the cornplaint lodged by the de complainant in Crime No. 349 of facto 2020. 5. It is fLrrther allcged that on encluiry. tb,e de.
fitto complainant came to know that the said Surveyor's report and conversion letter were created in collusion with ol-llcials and the accused including the petitioner herein have sold the land in Survey No. 448, which is a Covemment land, by showing it as the land in Survey No. 452. Thus, accused have cheated the de complainant. facto . t Crl. P. Nos. 6069 2020 & #:{ "f .. \L L I.. G. \t' IO\ SI\ CRI \III \ 0. J9. 1 of2 020: 6. The allegations ievelleci against the petitioner. _ accused No. J in the compiaint lodged by the ctc . fctcto contplainant _ Mr. L Ravi Kumar are that the accusecl inciucling the petitioner herein have played a fraud on hirr. Ms. K. Swarna Latha, the petitioner and her husband - Mr. K. Vijaya Kurrar, Mr. K. Venkata Seshu and Mr. Subhash Chandra Bose, have sold the agricultural land in Survey Nos. 46g and 469 to an extent of Acs. 6. 06 guntas vide document No. 7009 of 2003, an extent of Acs. 8. 02 guntas in Survey Nos.
43g,443,444,463,470 and 473 vide document No. 70l0 of 2003, and an extent of Acs. 7. 3g guntas in Survey Nos. 44S,450,45 1. 452,453 ancl zl54 vide clocument No. 70ll ol'2003. all are siruared at Chirkul village, to Smt. ! ,cnigalla Vijayalakshnti represented by Dr. Rarrakrishna Housing private Linrited. Subsequently. the husband of the petitioner met the de. facto conrplainant through one Mr. Mastanaiah and represented that he would sell an extent of 2760 square yards of land in Survey No. 46i, which in fact was already sold to Mrs. Vijaya Laxmi. Accordingly, brother of the de complainant paid an amount of Rs. 19,50,000/-facto to the husband ofthe petitioner on different dates and the husband of the petitioner has passed a receipt to that effect. 1. It is further alleged that subsequently the de facto conrplainant fbund that the said land became as plots and are in the venture ol Vijaya Lakshmi. Then he cluestioned the husband of the petitioner arrd denranded to return the amount.
Accordingly, the I KL,J of 2020 & batch . 1 Crt. P. Nos 6069 cheques lbr Rs l0'00 lakhs has issued two husband of the petitioner Later presented, they got dishonoured' the same were each and when above said persons came to know that the on, the cle complainant facto fraud on many persons including the petitior. rer herein have played the illegal acts done by including him. When he questioned about with dire therr, they threatened the tle -fhcto complair. rant complaint requesting the police consequences. Hence, he lodged the to take necessary action against them. ALLEGATIONS IN CRIME No. 349 of 2020: 8. The allegations levelled against the petitioner, accused No. 4, in tlre complaint by the de facto complainant - Smt. Vennigalla Vijaya Laxmi are that she has purchased the land to an extent of Acs. 22. 06 guntas in Survey Nos. 468, 469, 48, 443,444,463,470,4'73,449,450, 45 I and 452, situatcd at Chitkul village of Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, liom Smt. K.
Su,arnalatha anrl hcr sons. r'i2. , K. Vi. jay Kumar (Accusecl No. l), husband o1' thc petitiont: r herein, K. Vcnkatesh and K. Subash Cl. randrabose. vide rcgistered sale dccd bearing document Nos. 7009 of2003, 7010 of2003 and 701I of2003, and she converted the same along with other extent into non- agriculture, laid plots and started selling on the name of'Sai Santoshi Township'. 9. It is further alleged by the de complainant that on facto 27. 08. 2020 at 10. 00 a. m. , when she visited the site, she noticed that Crl. P. Nos. 6069 of20r0 & b::i Mr. Pradeep Chouclary (Accused No. 2), Mr. Konda Shivaraju, Mr. B. Yadaiah, Mr. K. Vi. jaya Laxnti, Mr. Masthanaiah ancl Mr. Sanjee' Reddy rvere crirrinally trespasscd into her land and rentoving the fencing stones by saying that they were purchasers o1-the said land. I 10. It. is aiso alleged by the cle . fircto complainant rhat on veriflcation ol thc documents, slre came to know that Mrs. K.
Swarnalatha has executed Gift Deed bearing document No. 30909 of 2018 in favour ofher son - Mr. Venkatesh, to an extent of459g square yards in Suruey No. 438, another Gift Deed bearing document No. 46164 of 2018 in favour of her son - Mr. Vijay Kumar (accused No. 1) and husband of the petitioner herein to an extent of27g3 square yards in Survey No. 463 and she also executed Agreement - cum - General Power ol Attorney (AGPA) bearing document No. 54452 of 2019 in lavour of Mr. . 1. Pradeep Choudary (accused No. 2) to an extent of 2420 square yards in Survey No. 452. Subsequently, her son - K. Venkatesh has cxecuted AGPn bearing docunrent No. 53578 ol' 2019 in fhvour o1- Mr. K. Venkata Seshu ancl accused No. 2 to an extent of 4598 square yards in Survey No. 438. Similarly, another son (accused No. 1) executed AGPA bearing document No. 40008 of 2019 in favour ofaccused No. 2 to an extent of 2783 square yards in Suruey No. 463. 1 l. It is further alleged that in view of the above, Smt. K.
Swarnalatha and her sons by colluding with accused No. 2 have executed documents in respect o1'the land which r. vas already sold to KL,J Crl. P. Nos. 6069 of 2020 & batch (, they have cheated and' thereby her earlier, it is a double rcgistratioll her. IOENR o\ lll.. ll ,\l-li o[' PE'TIT (' ONTN,ION CON'IE N'TIONS would senior counsel' Rajyam, Iearned 12. Mrs. K. Sesha above crimes have made complainants in the submit that the de facto respect of nature of land' Even enquiries with the revenue officials in in the complaint dated 03. 10. 2020 in Crime No. 415 of 2020 itself, the made enquiries with the de has stated that he has . facto complainant No. 1 has never revenue officials with regard to the land. Accused cornrnitted any cheating or critninal breach of trust as alleged by the de complainants in the above crimes. fitcto 13. The learned senior counsel u'ould lurther submit that the police have already taker. r custody of accuscd No. l, husband of the petitioner herein, on 23. 11.
2020, and custodial interrogation of accused No. 1 was over. The potice did not seek fbr any extension of custodial interrogation of accused No. l. The Investigating Officer has completed the entire investigation. The de have . facto complainants falsely implicated the petitioner and her husband in the aforesaid cnmes. The husband of the petitioner has purchased the land ad measuring 2783 square yards in Survey No. 463 vide registered sale deed bearing document No. 46164 ol20l8, dated 20. 11. 2018 frorn his vendor. Thereafter, he has executed ACPA vide document No. 40008 of 2019 in t'avour of accused No. 2 in respect o1' the very sarne land _----. ----. --_ ---_.. ___ cri. p. Nos. 606e of2 oro &{^l;i The learned senior counsel would submit that the said ]and is not a Government land. She has also relied upon the receipts dated - 2l. I L2018, 26. |. 2018, 25. r 1. 201 8, 20. 02. 2019 and 31. 05. 2019 issued by accused No. I.
By ref-erring to the said docunrents, the Iearned senior counsel *,oulcl sLrbmit that the disputes are ci'il in nature. T'he petitioner did not cornnrit any ollence I as alleged by the de facto complainants in all the crimes. The police have arrested accused No. l. husband ofthe petitioner and Mr. pradeep Choudhary in the said crimes on 2i. ro. 2o2o. This court has granted regular bails to them on certain conditions. The petitioner herein is a woman and she will abide by the conditions that would be imposed by this Court and would co-operate with the Investigating Officer in completion of lnvestl aation 14. With the above said contentions. the learned senior counsel sought to grant anticipatory bail to the petitionel in all the said climes by imposing ccrlain cond itions. CO}I\IO\ ST,B\IISSIO\S }I. \DE I}\' TII[- LEARNI. ]D PTJBI-IC PROSI. -CUTOIt: 15. On the other hand, the leamecl Public Prosecutor, on .
"vould instructions, submit that the petitioner and her husband have clreated the de. facto complainants in all the crirnes by showing the land in Survey No. 448 as if it is situated in Survey No. 452 of Chitkul village. The land in Survey No. 448 is Govemment land. Accused Nos. l and 2 have sold the land to the de complainant which was facto KL. J u Crl. P. Nos 6069 of 2020 & batch -l'hus, of the very same land' there is double registration already sold. along rvitll othcr accused itl The petitioner and her husbaucl in Ihe de facto complainants connivance with each other have cheated the above critnes would further submit that 16. The leamed Public Prosecutor there are several aspects to be investigated into by the lnvestigating Ofllcer including the aspect as to whether the subject land is in Survey No. 448 or in Survey No. 452. The lnvestigating Oflicer has to collect documents fro n. r the Revenue Officials. Investigation is pending.
The petitioner and her husband are inlluential persons and thet'e is every possibility of tampering the evidence and intcrt'ering rvith investigation. There are specitic oveft acts against the petitioner hercin. 17. With the said submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioner in all the above crimes. CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT: 18. Frorr the above submissions. the allegation against the petitioner and her husband in the above crintes is that they have sold the land in Survcy No. 448 shorving that it is located in Survey No. z152 of Chitkul village. They have received an amount ol Rs. l. 67 Crores '['he through cash and an amount of I(s.. 10. 00 lakhs through cheques. petitioner and her husband in collusion rvith other accused have sold Crl. P. Nos. 6069 of 2OrO tT,:,,] " the said land illegally by executing the documents twice and ir is double registration. Thus, the petitioner herein has cornmirted cheating.
The petitioner and her husband and others have also trespassed into the land of the tle . focto complainant in Crime No. 349 of 2020. ln the conrplainr dated 29. Og. 2l20in Crime No. 349 of 2020, the tle. facto contplainant has alleged that accused have trespassed into her land on 27. 08. 2020 ancl shc came to knorv about the criminal trespass on 27. 08. 2020. It is a matter to be investigatecl by the Investigating Otllcer. 19. Whether the land sold to r/e . facto complainant in Crir. r. re No. 415 of 2020 is in SurveyNo. 448 orin SurveyNo. 452 is also a fact to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. As submitted by the leamed Public Prosecutor,, the Investigating Officer has to collect evidence including documentary evidence from the Revenue Officials, and har e to exarnine them. 20. On perusal of the record rvould reveal that the petitioner herein through hcr AGPA with possession Holder, accused No. 1 in crinre No..
1l 5 ol 2020, has cxeclrted a sale cleed bearing docur-nent No. 3i79 ol 2020 dated 29. 01 . 2020 in lavour ol the tle facto complainant irr Crin. re No. ,1l5 of 2020. The schedule ol property rxentioned in the saicl document as fbllorvs: "All that piece of open land in Sy. No. 452 admeasuring 16. 39 guntas or 1983. 33 square yards out of open total land adr-neasuring 21. 78 guntas or 2635 square yards as shown in the plan annexed thereto KL. ] & batch Crl. P. Nos. 6069 o12020 t0 received The total sale consideration situated at Chitkur village " document is Rs'15'87'0001 shown in the said the said that she has purchased The petitioner herein has claimed No'17905 of 2018' propefiy under a registered sale deed document ofthe said propefiy itselfdiscloses dated 14. 05. 2018. The description accused' It cannot be 16'39 the conduct of the petitioner and other guntas or 1983. 33 square yards and it also cannot be 21. 78 guntas or 'lhe 2635 square yards. It cannot be 78 guntas.
very description of the propefiy itsell is not proper. The petitioner here is claiming tl. rat she purchased the said land through a registered sale deed by paying huge aurount towards sale considcration without n'rentioning the extent etc. properly. 2 l . However, it is relevant to note that the petitionel herein is claiming that she is the owner of the above said properly and has executed an Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney with possession bearing document No. 53579 of 2019 in favour of accused No. 2 i. e. , J. Pradeep Choudary. Thus. she has executed the above said document in lavour of the said J. Pradeep Choudary, who in turn sold the said property to the de cornplainant in Crime . fitcto No. z1l5 ol 2020. In view o1- thc same. the contention of the learncd senior counsel that the petitioner herein is neither a purchaset'nor a seller o1'any olthe extent o1-thc Iand is incorrect. 22. There are specitic allegations against the petitioner and l.
rer I-rusband in all the above said crimes. l-ltev have received an amount rr crt. p Nos. 6o6e tlLi] "r:ozo. t olRs. I. 67 Crores in cash and Rs. 40. 00 lakhs through cheques, which is huge amounf and they have so]d land in Survey No. 463 through document No. l36 of2020 and in fact, the said land has already sold to Mrs' Vijaya Lakshmi' The said Iand was arso convefted into plots and it is in the venture of Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi. There are serious allegations against the petitioner and her husband that they have made lhe de facto complainant to believe that the land is having clear title and sold the sante lo the de /auo complainant by receiving the above said amount. The petitione'and her husband and otrrers have shown created documents and made the de facto complainant to believe that the land is in Survey No. 452 of Chitkul village, and in fact the said land is located in Survey No. 448, which is a Government land.
There is serious allegation of threatening of the de complainant with facto dire consequences. 23. Similar allegations were made by the de complainant facto in Crime No. 349 of 2020. In the said crime, the petitioner's mother- in-law, i. e. , Smt. K. Swarnalatha has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner to an extent of Ac. l. 02 guntas in Survey No. 452 vide document No. 17905 o12018 dated 09. 05. 2018 and on the strength of the said clocunrent, the petitioner herein has executed Agreerllent ol- Sale - cur-n - Gcrreral Porver of Attontey ir-r tavour ol accused No'2 i. e. , Jasti Pradeep Choudary, to an extent of 21. 78 guntas or 2635 square yards in Survey No. 452 ol Chitkul village vide docut. uerrt No. 3379 of2020. They have created a false lay out copy, laid plots in KL,J & batch Crl. P. Nos. 6069 o12020 and sold to Mr' Vijaya Lakshmi which was already sold that venture, i'e'' Konda Shiva Raj complainant yards to lhe de 104 square facto towards of 2020 by receiving Rs. 9.
00 lakhs vide document No. 17607 yards to Mr' B' sold another 104 square sale consideration and also Rs. 9'00 lakhs yadaial. r vide document No. 19084 of 2020 by receiving ti'om him. Thus, the petitioner herein and other accused have not only cheated. There are serious allegations against the petitioner l-rerein in crirnc No. 3,l9 o12020 24. In Crime No. ,194 of 2020 also there are sinlilar allegations against the petitioner and her husband and her mother-in-law, who are also accused in the said crime with regard to land in Survey No. 453 ol Chitkul village. The details of documents, suney number, extent of land and sellers names have been specifically mentioned in the complaint dated 07. 11. 2020 in a tabular form. The petitioner ar. rd other accused have received an amount of Rs. 19. 00 lakhs fi'om the r/e complainant and his brother and sold 2760 square yards ofland. facto l'he husband of the petitioner has issued receipts in proofofreceipt of the said amoullt.
The said receipts were rvritten bi, accused No. 5. . nvas l he saicl land convefied into plots rvhich arc in the venture ol' 'lhe Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi. petitioncr and oLhers have issuecl two 'l-hus. cheques lor Rs. 10. 00 lakhs u,hich ri ere clrshonoured. thc1, havc cheated the cle complainant and others ar. rd there is facto serious allegation of threatening of the de complainant against the Jttcto petitioner and her husband. l. t Crl. P. Nos. 6069 of2020 & b:r:;j 25. As discussed above, there are three crimes aga,nst the pe titioner. There are serious allegations against the t petitioner also. t i She has executed a registered document in favour ofaccused No. 2 and received the above said huge amounts from the complainants / victims. Investigation is pending. This Court granted regular bails to the husband ofthe petitioner and Mr. Jasti pradeep Choudary but not anticipatory bail. 26.
considering the said aspects, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to rhe petitioner herein. Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in the above criminal petitions shall stand closed. Sd/-B. SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGIS ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The First Class lvlagistrate Special lt/obile Court, at Sangareddy. 2 The Station House Officer, Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District. 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to Sri Koteswara Rao lVlummaneni, Advocate IOPUC] 5 Two CD Copies MMK HIGH COURT KLJ OATED:l711212020 1 kie S I4 , o z o 1 5 DEC 2U0 I COMMON ORDER . r'i -t * CRLP. No. 6069, 6074 and 6081 of 2020 L5€Sj},. J c l.. - DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS l fl,O
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.