Dismissed

Md. Abdul Razak v. The State of Telanagana

Telangana HC16 Sept 2022CRLP/411/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, holding the petition infructuous because the trial court had already acquitted the petitioner and disposed of the case on 27.12.2021.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 411 of 2020 dismissed as infructuous as the underlying case was disposed of with an acquittal on 27.12.2021.

Md. Abdul Razak Vs The State of Telanagana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE ST,ATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 411 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

MD. ABDUL RAZAK, S/o- Md. Abdul Sattar, Age.23 Yrs, Occ:Software Engineer, Rl/o. H.No.8-46, Madaram Village, Karepally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶8

...PETITIONERYSOLE ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

'l . The STATE OF TELANAGANA, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENT NO.1/COMPLAINANT

¶12

Smt. MOHD. SHAHIN, Wo. Abdul Gaffar, Aged about.40 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o. Devasadan Apartment, ll Floor, F-3, Geetha Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT NO.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶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 proceedings against the Petitioner/Sole Accused in S.C.No. 643 of 2015, on the file of lAdditional District and Sessions Judge Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶15

l.A. NO: I OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 320(6) 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 proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 in S.C.No- 643 of 2015, on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in view of the Compromise accorded between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2. The Petitioner humbly prays for the indulgence of this Honble Court UlS. 482 of Cr.P.C.,therefore this Honble court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to compromise the matter.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Ser tion 320 (2) rlw 482 of Cr.P.C., prervrng that in the circumstances stated in lhe lvlemorandum of Grounds ol Crinrinal Petition, the High Court may be^please I to record the compromise accorded betlveen the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 anc quash the proceedings against the Resp()nCent No-1 herein i.e. Sole Accused in S.C No. 643 oI 2015, on the file of I Addilional District and Sessions Judge Cyberaba J, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶19

This Petition comin I on for hearing, upon perusing the Me.no'andum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri H S,tJ DHAKARA RAO, Advocate for the Petitione and the Public Prosecutor (TG), on behal'cf the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Janakirar r Myla, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶20

The Court made the follo rrirg: ORDER

// t' /t

I I

t I

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION No.411 OF 2O2O

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Petition is liled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.643 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, the cognizance of which is taken for the offences under Sections 420, 417, 376 (i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l)(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Officens Act, 2Ol2 read with Section 9 of the Crimina-l Law Amendment Act, 2013.

¶28

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioneraccused.

¶29

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l-State has submitted that during pendency of this criminal petition, the trial Court has completed the trial and the petitioner herein was found not guilty for the offences alleged against him and thereby the

¶30

¶31

case has be :n disposed ol on 27.12.2021 Learned Assistant Pul lic Prosecutor has filed copy of e-(lourts proceedings tr substantiate the same.

¶32

In view of the above submission, sincr: fhe vsry purpose of fi ing this criminal petition hrts alr:eadv been fulfilled on account of the petitioner accu sr-'d being acquittecl by the trial Court, no cause :;urvi'zes in this petition and thereby the Criminal Petition hzL:i become infructuous a rcl liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Accordir,gly, the Criminal Petition is dir;missed as infructuous.

¶34

PendinE Miscellaneous Applications,, il any shall

¶35

stand closed.

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

SD/. P.F)AC,I[/TIAN,ABHA REDDy qS:SIS.I.,I\NT REGISTRAR 6⁵ \

¶38

Sil:CTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

The Court of X Met lpolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

¶41

" 2. The court of I Addi ionar District and Sessions Judge cyberabac, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nag rr

¶42

The Station House )fficer, Matkajgiri^police Station,Cyberabad, Hydera bad.

¶43

One CC to SRl. H. }UDHAKARA RAO Advocate [OpUC]

¶44

One CC to SRI JAI AKTRAM MYLA,Advocate [OpUC]

¶45

Two CD Copies

¶46

One Spare Copy

pcsd bq

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/09/2022

ORDER

CRLP.No.411 of²⁰²⁰

DISMISSING THE CRI iII,IAL PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶53

4
2 ] NirII 2822
i
[-
\L >p>)=-,,

Md. Abdul Razak v. The State of Telanagana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abdul Razak v. The State of Telanagana

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

Sri.Ayyawar Santhosh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Gunda Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Syed shashnooorullah hussaini saberi ,ali sabers Vs Miss Sanobar Hussain

Mohd. Irfan Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana And Another

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

Syed Mohammed Mukarram and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another