Dismissed

Smt. Hussain Bee v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022CRLP/1115/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by accused persons seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. The Court held the petition infructuous as the trial court had already disposed of the case via settlement before Lok Adalat prior to the petition's filing.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 1115 of 2020 dismissed as infructuous.

Smt. Hussain Bee Vs The State of Telangana and another — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32se I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1115 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Hussain Bee, Wo P.Babulu, aged-SO^years, Occ- House wife, CasteMuslim, R/o Sy.No.s7/A, Kasthuri Colony, Manovikas Nagar, Bowtrrcnpally, Secunderabad

¶9

P.Babulu, S/o Pathan Khasim Saheb Aged- 51^years, Occ- RMP Doctor, Rlo. Rl/o Sy.No.57/A, Kasthuri Colony, Manovikas Nagar, BowWenpally, Secunderabad

¶10

...pETrroNERS/AccusED 2 &3

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶13

Smt Kanumuri Lalitha Raj, Wio Pathar Jameer, Aged.27 years, Occ - House wife, Fl/o H.No. 16-2-836/53, Flat No.204, / Virinchi Apartments, Road No.'|0, Madhav Nasar colonv' saidabad' n'0"*lflil"toNDENTS/coMpLArNANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circ,umstanc.es stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.693 of 2017 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in connection with C.C.No.693 of 2017 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.JOSEPH BALA PRATHAP, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

)

¶20

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶21

aRIIIINAL PETITION No.1115 OF 2O2O

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.693 of 2Ol7 pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampa-lly, Hyderabad, the cognizance of which is taken for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3.

¶25

Learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State has submitted that during pendencv of this criminal petition, the trial Court has disposed of the case ot 71.I2.2021 by way of settlcment before Lok adaiath. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has liled copy of e-Courts proceedings to substantiate the sarme.

¶26

¶27

In view of the above submission, since the very purpose of filing this criminal petition has already been fullilled and no cause survives in this petition arrd thereby the Criminal Petition has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶29

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶30

Sd/.N.RAJ GOPAL ASSISTANT R ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE FFICER

¶31

To 1 The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate,at Nampally' Hyderabad'} 2 The Station House fficer, Women's^{PoliceStation, Hyderabad.} 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad (OUT) 4 Ohe CC to Sri Joseph Bala^{Prathap,Advocate} [OPUCI Two CD Copies ti One Spare Copy K1 \ V

¶32

HIGH COLIRT

¶33

DATED:191O912Q22

¶34

;',-iA IE g \t,
I -\f,
tr [t-t t$[ o
,/

¶35

ORDER

¶36

CRLP.No.1115 of 2020

¶37

DISMISSING THE CRL.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS.

¶38

@
Iu2

Smt. Hussain Bee v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hussain Bee 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

Md. Abdul Razak Vs The State of Telanagana

Mohd. Irfan Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Shri. Kotakonda Pitchaiah Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Banavath Ravi and 2 others Vs The State Of Telangana

V.Murali Krishna Vs Sri M.Yadi Reddy and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Sri Dokuri Ravinder Reddy, Vs Sri Manda Yadi Reddy