Direction to dispose the case speedily = accused No.1, who is an employee in USA, is now in India and the accused are ready to face the trial and as such a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the case within a specified period to avoid hardship to the accused. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and taking into account the fact that the accused No.1 is residing in USA by virtue of his employment, the Trial Court is directed to take up the trial on priority basis and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order in the Criminal Petition.

 published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRLP&mno=1795&year=2013

CRLP 1795 / 2013

CRLPSR 6297 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
MADDIGAOPPU NAGI REDDY (A2) & ANOTHER  VSTHE STATE OF A.P. & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : SWAMYRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Quash the proceedings U/s.498-A I.P.CDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1795 of 2013

O R D E R :

                  Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
                  This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.968 of 2012 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
                  Basing on the report lodged by the second respondent/ defacto complainant, the Police Suryapet, Nalgonda District, registered a case in FIR No.150 of 2011 under Sections 498-A  of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
                  It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is no prima facie material showing involvement of the petitioners and A.1 in the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated in this case with a view to harass them. However, the learned counsel submitted inter-alia that accused No.1, who is an employee in USA, is now in India and the accused are ready to face the trial and as such a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the case within a specified period to avoid hardship to the accused.
                  Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and taking into account the fact that the accused No.1 is residing in USA by virtue of his employment, the Trial Court is directed to take up the trial on priority basis and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order in the Criminal Petition.
                  With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.  As sequel to it, Crl.P.M.P.No.1513 of 2013 shall stand dismissed.
                 
                                                      ____________________

R. KANTHA RAO, J


4th March, 2013
dv/smr

 

 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO


































CRIMINAL PETITION No.1795 of 2013




4th March, 2013




dv/smr


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.