BINGAPALLI BHAGYA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. Perused the record.

(2.) The petitioner is questioning the correctness of the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.679 of 2022 in C.C.No.164 of 2010 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri on 7/9/2022.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the application is filed only with a view to harass the complainant and since the complainant was already crossexamined, the order vide dtd. 7/9/2022 in Crl.M.P.No.679 of 2022 in C.C.No.164 of 2010 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, has to be set aside.