Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN
Duddilla Sridhar Babu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER:
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Mr. Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.1 and Mr. Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.3803 of 2018 in C.C. No.26 of 2023 (Old C.C. No.675 of 2017) passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Hyderabad.
3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in C.C. No.26 of 2023 (Old C.C. No.675 of 2017). The offences alleged against him are under Sections - 147, 186, 427 read with 149 of IPC.
4. In the complaint dated 23.08.2017, de facto complainant, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Projection, Division-2, Kataram Village and Mandal, In-charge of Peddapalli, alleged that public hearing on Kaleshwaram Project was started at 11.00 A.M. on 23.08.2017 at Reddy Function Hall, Raghavapur Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District. The said hearing was going on smoothly. People were expressing their views. At 12.15 P.M., the petitioner – accused No.1, accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 and also about 300 number of persons started slogans against Chief Minister, li
The court affirmed that a discharge application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. requires a limited examination of whether the charge is groundless, without delving into the merits of the case.
(1) Investigation of non-cognizable cases – Even if police receives any such complaint relating to non-cognizable offence, police cannot start investigation without there being a green signal from Ma....
Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely th....
Insufficient evidence warrants discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.; previous acquittals of co-accused negate grounds for continued prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that public servants, when allegedly committing an offence in discharge of their official duties, require prior sanction for prosecution under Sect....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
