Dismissed

Mohammed Arif Ahmed, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Sept 2022CRLP/2402/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings because the trial was nearly complete and a supplementary charge sheet had just been filed, deeming it unfit for quashing at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Mohammed Arif Ahmed, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2402 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Arif Ahmed, S/o. Mohammed Jaleel Ahmed, Aged 43 years, Occ.Accountant, Ri/o.'t B-12-4181N28411, Maqboolpura Colony, Hafizbabalagar, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, P.S., Afzalgunj, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court, at Hyderabad

¶12

2 Surya Nayak, Occ Police Officer, Rl./o. Commissioners Taskforce North Zone Team, Hyderabad.

¶13

... Res ponde nts/Com pla ina nt

¶14

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 quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.32 of 2015 in Crime No.267 of 2014 o'( P.S. Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, on file of the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, at Hyderabad, for the offences Punishable Uls. 41(D)11O2 Cr.P.C, and 171(E), 171(H) lPC.,

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶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 dispense with filing of certified copy of the C.C. No.32 of 2015 in Crime No.267 of 2O14 of P.S. Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, on file of the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, at Hyderabad, for the offences Punishable Uls. 41(D)11O2 Cr.P.C, and 171(E), 171(H) IPC and accept the Xerox copy of the same.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under I ;ection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in .he c rcumstances stated in the Memorar dum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, tl-e High Court may be pleased to stay all urther proceedings in C.C. No.32 of 2015 in Orime No.267 of 2014 of P.S. Afzall unj, Hyderabad, on flle of the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, at Hyderabr rd, for the offences Punishable Uls. 41(D)l1O',L Cr.P.C, and 171(E),171(H) rPC,

¶19

This Petition cr,ming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimina Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. RAGHUNATH, Advoc rte for the Petitioner and the Public Pros ecutc,r on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing irr person or by Advocate.

¶20

The Court made the i ollowing: ORDER

¶21

]'HE I{ON'BI-E Dr. JUS'IICE C. RADHA RANI

¶22

Cli.IN{INAL PETITION No.2402 OF 2019

¶23

ORDE,R:

¶24

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-Al under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.32 of 2015 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad arising out of Crime No.267 of 2014 of Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4l(d)1102 Cr.P.C. and Section r7l (E), (H) rPC.

¶25

The case ofthe prosecution as pcr the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Afzalgunj Police Station was that A1 was the State General Secretary of Popuiar Front of India, Political wing of Social Democratic Party of India. On 05.05.2014, A.2 received information from Al that their Delhi control ofl'ice was sending an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs through Hawala channel to meet the election expenses at Nandyal and Kurnool and to collect the same and forward to Kumool. A I also instructed A2 to forward the token number (code) to his mobile number. As per the instructions of A l, ,A.2 forwarded the token number to A I . Then, A I sent an SMS to A2. On

¶26

DLGRR.J

¶27

receil)t of thc said SMS, A.2 contacted with the said number^which belonged to A l, who instructed A2 to come to B rnnaj i^Market, Begunr l)azar,I tyderabad and A2 received an amount c I' Rs.tj.00 lakhs frorn A3, aiicr handing over the token of ten rupeel; dencmination currency with ;erial No.28 R 25832 and A.1 to A3 comrnitted the of,fence liable :or punishment under Sections 41 (d)r 102 Cr.P.C. and 171 (E), (H) rP -t.

¶28

I{car I Sri V. Raghunath, leamed counsel fc r the petitioner and the learne<j Public Prosecutor for the 1't respondenl

¶29

The leamed counsel for the petitioner sut,nritted that the

¶30

narre of the p:titioner was not found in the FlR, tlrt: petitioner was irnplicated sub;equently as an accused at the time of liling the charge sheet. Except the confessional statements, there \ as nJ material against the pe itioner to contend that he was involved in the atleged oflences. The pctitioner was implicated intentionally to srrpprcss his rights to parlir ipate in social issues addressing against the State. The alleged of'fenres under Sections al(d) and 102 Cr.P.C. were only procedural in nature, they were not any substantive ofl'ences. The offlences allcg:d uncler Scctions l7l (E) and 171 (lIr IPC would not

¶31

DtORR.J Crlp Yo 2401o1-:019

¶32

attract tg the petitioner, as there was no allegation of any bribery or there was no such complaint alleging that money was used for the election purpose. Section l7 I (H) pertained to iltegal payments in connection rvith an election and the said Section also would not attract to the facts and circumstances of the case.^'fhe respondent police were intentionally keeping the case pending since 2014. Even after completion of trial after examination ol all the witnesses, at the stage of argurnents, the prosecution filed an application seeking further investigation and filing supplementary charge sheet only with an intention to drag the matter and to fill the lacunae. The criminal case filed against the petitioner would tantamount to rnisuse ol- law and abuse of process of law. If the same was continued there was every likelihood of mis-carriage of justice and prayed to quash the proceedings in CC No.32 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutol submitted that tlre trial was almost completed and the case was pending due to the petition filed by the Investigating Officer for filing supplementary charge sheet, as

¶34

.l Itr-tiRR.J

¶35

such, the case c, )uld not be quashed at this stage and^prz,yed to^dismiss the petition.

¶36

(t. Pcrus ed the record. On a perusal of the re cord, it would disclose that th,: trial was alrnost con-rpleted and when Lhe cise was at the stage ol- a^'guments, a petition was flied by th,: Inr estigating Officer to file supplementary charge sheet stating that he had credible inlirrmation thi t nrany people were involved in the said case and a bigger conspir:rcy was therc and on the instructions of- his superior officers. he hac taken up lurlher investigation and requ,lsted to adjourn the matter titt ihe supplementary charge sheet was filed, to take the same on rccorc .

¶37

7 . As the case is almost at the fag end and the truth or otherwise of t re allegations leveled against the petitioner-Al can be decided by tte trial coufi on appreciating the entire evidence,on record, it is ccnsidcred not a fit case to quash the pro,;eedings against the petitioner-\l in CC No.32 of 2015 on the file ollII Metropolitan Magistrate, Fyderabad arising out of Crime No.267 cf 2014 of Afzalgunj Po ice Station, Hyderabad, registered ftr the offences

¶38

DTARR.J C,]p No l4D of )019

¶39

¶40

punishable under Sections 4l(d)/102 Cr.p.C. and Section l7l (E), (H)

¶41

IPC, at this stage.

¶42

In the result, the Criminal^petition is dismissed. pending

¶43

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

SD/.K.SAILESH I .,/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lll lvletropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, at Hyderabad.

¶51

The Station House Officer, Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad District.

¶52

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

¶53

One CC to SRI V. RAGHUNATH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CD Copies

¶55

One Spare Copy

MMK . ebr^(J

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010912022

1 tl Sli ?$27

ORDER

CRLP.No.2402 of 20 9

DISMISSlNG THE CRIM!NAL PETITION

Mohammed Arif Ahmed, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Arif Ahmed, v. The State of Telangana

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

E. Munichandra Goud, Mahabubnagr Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Mohd. Ayub Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Vadde Mallesham Vs the State of a.P., through Rep. by P.P., Hyd.

Mohammed Iftequaruddin Siddiqui , Aijaz Vs Mohammed Ghouse Mohiuddin

Syed Barkathulla Basha Vs the State of Telangana

S. Ramu Vs Smt. L. Ramanamma , Rajani