Dismissed

Patan Khadar Khan v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC24 Nov 2021CRLP/8677/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. Inherent jurisdiction was not invoked to quash the case as no sufficient circumstances existed; the petitioner was instead directed to seek discharge before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to file an application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial court.

Patan Khadar Khan Vs The State of Telangana and another — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ' AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8677 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Patan Khadar Khan, S/o. Patan lsmail Khan, aged about 29 ,,.years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.'l 5-3 I -4L-1 41 1, lV Phase, Kukatpatly, Hyderaba (.).

¶8

... Petitio n e r/Acc use d

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Mamata Hiremath, D/o. (Not mentioned in the FIR), Aged about Not mentioned in the FIR), OceNot mentioned in the FlR, R/o H, No. (Not mentioned in FIR), Gundlapochampally, Mandal, Medchal, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to quash the C.C.No. 683 of 2021, on the file of the court of the XXll Additional Ivletropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal in connection^{with FIRNo.539of} 2021 , dated 22-05-2021, on the file of the Pet^{Basheerbad PoliceStation} Cyberabad, U/Sec.420, 406 and 504 of^{IPC againstthe petitioner herein to prevent} abuse of process of Law and securing ends^{of justice.}

¶15

l.A. NO:2 F 2021

¶16

Petition under section 482 ol Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased} to stay of all further^{proceedingsin pursuanceof the charge Sheet filed in c.c.No.} 683 of 2021 on the file of^{the court of the XXllAdditional Metropolitan li/agistrate,} Cyberabad, at Medchal^{in connectionwith FIRNo 539 of 2021 , dated 22-05-2021,} on the file of the Pet Basheerbad^{Police station cyberabad,U/sec420, 406 and 504} of IPC including appearance of^{the petitioner pending disposalof the criminal} Petition.

¶17

¶18

¶19

This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of '} Grounds of Criminal^{Petitionand upon hearingthe argumentsof Srl ThirumalRao} Mamidala, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf} of the Respondent No.1 and^{of the Respondent No.2 not appearingin person or by} Advocate.

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM^AKTHER

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No,8677 OF 2O21

¶24

SDEB:

¶25

This Criminal Petition, under Section^{482 of the Code of} Criminal Procedure, 1973^{(for short,'Cr.P.C.'), ls filed by the} petitioner/accused seeking to^quash the^{proceedings against him in} C.C.No.683 of 2027 on the^{file of XXII AdditionalMetropolitan} Magistrate, Cyberabad, at^{Medchal, whereinthe Court belowtook} cognizance for the offences^{under Sections420, 406 and 504 IPC'}

¶26

Heard the learned counsel^{for the petitioner/accused,the} learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutor representingthe respondent} No.1/State and^{perused the record.}

¶27

It has been^{contendedby the learnedcounselfor the} petitioner/accused that there are^{no groundsto proceedagainst} the^{petitioner/accused for the offences allegedunder sections 420,} 406 and 504 IPC^{and continuationof proceedingsagainst him is} nothing but abuse of^{process of law and in the interest of justice} also the^{proceedings against the petitioner/accusedare liable to} quashed and ultimately^{prayed to allow this petitionas prayed for'}

¶28

4.Ontheotherhand,learnedAssistantPublicProsecutorwould contendthattheallegationsmadeagainstthepetitioner/accused doconstitutetheoffencesunderSections42O,406and504IPC and there is^{materialto proceed against him and ultimately prayed} to dismiss the^{Criminal Petition.}

¶29

¶30

As seen from the material on record, there are allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust against the^petitioner/ accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/accused in the subject C.C is abuse of process of law. It is pertinent to state that the inherent jurisdiction oF this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case, either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, none of the circumstances mentioned above do exist for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in the subject Calendar Case by exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner/accused is at liberty to file an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court seeking discharge, if he chooses to do so. In the event of the petitioner/accused filing such an application, the Court below shall dispose of the same, independently, on merits, in accordance with law. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed by this Court in relation to the merits or demerits of the case of the petitioner/accused on hand.

¶31

With the above observations and direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶33

¶34

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To, 1 The XXll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad.

¶36

2 The Station House Officer, PefBasheerabad Police Station, Cyberabad District.

¶37

3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶38

One CC to Sri Thirumal Rao Mamidala, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies I

¶39

¶40

MMK One Spare Copy \l 1r:.= TR

HIGH COURT

OATED:2411112021

ORDER

CRLP.No.8677 ot 2021

tle S TA 15:
<br>o)e
DEC 20?r
L) 1 4
!L;
*
-_t

¶46

DISPOSING OF ]-HE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶47

2<br>a

Patan Khadar Khan v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patan Khadar Khan v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Narsingdas Tapadia Vs Goverdhandas Partani and 7 Others

Sri Md. Shamsad Ali, Vs the Insp of Police, Rep by Its Spl Pp Hyd., for Acb.

Kamini Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Addanki Hemanth Kumar , Raju and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Rakesh Niranjan Ranjan Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Puranam Swarnalatha Vs The State of Telangana