Telangana High Court
CRLRC/666/2025 of Kosari Srinvias @ Chinna Srinu Vs The State of Telangana on 3 November 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IMONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVETUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 666 OF 2025 Revision case under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS against the order dated 13- 08-2025 in
13257 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
IMONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVETUBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 666 OF 2025
Revision case under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS against the order dated 13- 08-2025 in Crl.tM.p.No.62 0f 2025 in SC.No.462 0f 2022 (oid sc.No.361 of 2018) on the file of the court of the principal District and sessions Judge at Jayashankar Bhupalpally.
Between:
Kosari Srinvias @ Chinna Srinu, S/o Laminarsu, aged about 46 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Lingara Vi age, Regonda Mandar, Jayashankar- Bhuparapaly District
AND
... petitioner/Accused No_2
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Telangana Hyderabad.
.. . Res po n d e nURes ponde nUCom plainant The Station House Officer, Rep. through Regonda police Station, Regonda lVlandal, Jayashankar- Bhupalapalli District.
...RespondenUComplainanUDe-facto Complainant
Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the ordei crl.vp.No.6z or 2025 in SC. No. 462 of 2022 (otd sc No. 36 1 of 2018) on the fite of the principat District and sessions Judge at Jayashankar- Bhupalapally pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition.
lA NO: 'l OF 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar Counsel for the Respondent No..l: Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI S RIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.665 of >-025
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
Challenging the order, dated 13.08.202a passed in Crl.li/ P.No 62 of 2025 in S.C.No.462 of 2022 (old ) C No 361 of 2018) by the learned Principal District and Sess,irrns Judge at Jayashankar Bhupalpally, this Criminal Revision Cas : is filed. By the impugned order. the petition filed by the petitione' .rnder Section 227 of Cr P C seeking to discharge him was dismisse<
2. Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel fc r the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Adrli ional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State an(i perused the record
Basing on the complaint, dated 27 122016 clged by the de facto complainant alleging that accused Nos.1 tc 1 and others attacked her husband with deadly weapons and killr:r him due to grudges between them, a case in Crrme No.259 c f 2016 was registered against them. Subsequently, on the b rsis of the confessional statements of accused Nos l and 3, the p rtitioner was arrayed as accused No.2. After completion of investa(,2 tion, charge sheet was filed, the same was taken cognizance and r umbered as S C No 462 of 2022 (old S C No 361 of 2018) for the cff :nces under -
Sections 148, 120-8 and 302 rlw 149 of lpC. pursuant thereto, Thereafter, the petitioner filed Court. Upon perusal of the material available on record, the learned ,\/agistrate dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has fired the present Criminal Revision Case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate faired to properry appreciate the materiar avairabre on record and mechanically passed the impugned order dismissing the discharge petition. Either in the compraint or FrR, the name of the petitioner does not find place. There are no specific allegations agarnst the petitioner regarding participation in the areged offences. The entire case against the petitioner rests solely on the confessional statements of accused Nos..l and 3, which ls rnadmissible in evidence as per law. However, the learned Magistrate overlooked this crucial aspect and dismissed the discharge petition fired by the petitioner without due consideration. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor submits that an axe and a mobile phone were seized at the instance of the petitioner, which crearry estabrishes his invorvement in the alleged offences. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has summons were issued to the accused a discharge petition before the trial properly appreciated the material on record and rirll tly passed the impugned order, which cannot be interfered with He rce, he prayed to dismiss the revision.
Having heard the submissions of both sides arrr uporr perusal of the record. it is evident that the learned Magistrah) Jismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner holding that t re statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr p.C. namely DAnanda Rao (LW-5), J tr4utha Reddy (LW_7), A Sr rivas (LW_8) specifically refer to the presence of the petitioner a: he sr;ene of offence. Further, the statement of O. Saidulu (LW_9) tisctoses the existence of a conspiracy among accused Nos.1 to g. a )art from the confessional statement of accused No.2.
7. ln vieuy of the said material, this Court is of il-e ccnsidered view lhat the learned Magistrate has righily dismissed h e drscharge petition and there rs no infirmity or illegality cr rrreg J arity n the lmpugned order warranting interference by this Court. L Accordingly, thjs Criminai Revision Case rs dismissed. Pending mjscellaneous applications, if any, shall str nd closed. S c r- T. VIJAY KUMAR EIE PUTY REGISTRAR To //TRUE COPY/' G JECTION OFFICER
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Jayashanka r 3hupalpally.
2. The Additional Judicial First Class tVlagistrate ai parkal 3 The station House officer, Regonda porice Station, Jaya s ranka.-Bhuparapali Distnct. . Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the S,t rte of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT] . One CC to Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate tOpUCl . Two CD Copie:; V\- tl karl
HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025
ORDER
CRLRC.No.666 of 2025 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE i
n. 'j ,, t' 't -;r .f- i'.) il ,, t r 6'tiir ?tr15 q '?r,A tc\- Fv-. .rii)2 a) , 1:, .,, '11