Telangana High Court
CRLRC/3284/2015 of The State of Telangana Vs Dasari Veera Venkata Naga Srikar on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No.3284 of 2015 ORDER The present criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 23.09.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2615 of 2015 in C.C.No.87 of 2015 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at l.B.Nagar. 2. Heard and perused the
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGOCrl.R.C.No.3284 of 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present criminal revision case is directed against theorder dated 23.09.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2615 of 2015 inC.C.No.87 of 2015 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad at l.B.Nagar.
2. Heard and perused the material on record.
3. The petitioner/A1 is involved in C.C.No.87 of 2015 on thefile of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at l.B.Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He filedthe impugned application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking topermit him to represent through his counsel and dispense with hispersonal appearance before the Court on every date ofadjournment due to his employment in abroad. By the orderimpugned, the said application was allowed permitting thepetitioner to represent through his counsel. Aggrieved by thesame, the petitioner/State filed the present revision.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court whiledispensing with the presence of the petitioner, no specific directionwas issued for his appearance before the trial Court wheneverrequired and that due to the absence of the petitioner/A1, the trialwill not proceed further.
5. By the order impugned, the trial Court having observed thatthe petitioner is working in abroad and as the matter arising out ofmatrimonial dispute, there is no dispute with regard to his identity,allowed the application dispensing with the presence of thepetitioner/A1. Further, the trial Court also permitted the petitionerto represent through his counsel and therefore, no prejudice wouldbe caused to the prosecution in proceeding with the trial. In view ofthe same, the trial Court has rightly passed the order impugnedand there is no need to interfere with by this Court.
6. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall standdismissed.
______________________
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
31[st] December, 2015sj