Dismissed

Mohd. Irfan Mohiuddin v. The State of Telangana And Another

Telangana HC16 Sept 2022CRLP/427/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the High Court Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing offences under the Indian Penal Code, holding the petition infructuous as the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 427 of 2020 dismissed as infructuous; pending miscellaneous applications stood dismissed.

Mohd. Irfan Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana And Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^325e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 427 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohd. lrfan Mohiuddin @ Mohinuddin S/o. Md. Rafiq, Aged 36 Years, Occupation. lT Employee, R/o. H.No. 8-1-351124, Rahul Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, through Station House Officer, Rajendranagar,. Ranga Reddy District

¶12

Smt. Shakeela Begum, W/o. Dr. Mohd Ahmed, Aged about 52 Years, Occupation. Household, Rl/o. H.No. 12-2-3612711, Zeba Bagh, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/De-FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 ol 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 of FIR in Crime No. 520 o't 2014 Daled 2510612014 registered for the offences under Section 42O lPC, 464 lPC, 1208 -|PC,406 IPC and 34 IPC before the P.S Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy against the Petitioner or Accused No. 2, in the interest of .justice.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 in FIR in Crime No. 52O of 2014 Dated 25106/20'14 registered for the offences under Section 420 lPC,464 lPC,

¶17

¶18

1208 -lPC, 406 lPo and 34 IPC before the P.S Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy pending dis;posal of the main Crl. Petition in the interest of justice.

¶19

This Pt-.tition :oming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds ol Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. A. Basith, Advocate for the Pet tioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2,

¶20

The Court rna,le the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶22

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.427 OF 2O2O

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused No.2 to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.52O of 2014 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences under Sections 42O, 464, l2O-8, 406 read with 34 of the Indial Penal Code.

¶26

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioneraccused No.2.

¶27

karned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No. 1-State has submitted that during pendency of this criminal petition, the Police have completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet and the sarne was taken on file by the learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has filed copy of e-Courts proceedings to substantiate the same.

¶28

¶29

¶30

4 . In view of the above submission, since entire inr, estigartir n is completed and charge sheet is also liled, the v:ry plrrpose of filing the criminal petition to quash Crirne No.[20 of 2Ol4 of Rajendranagar Police Station, Ranga Redciy District, is defeated and thereby the Crimina-l Petir.iorr ha s become infructuous and liable to be disrr isr;ed .

¶31

Ar:corcli ngly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as rnfrur:tu ot-rs.

¶32

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall

¶33

stand ckrscd

¶34

SD/- G.SIREESHA AsstsrANr,RFftsryS /ITRUE^COPY// \ r',SECTION^OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

The^{Vllllv'le:ropolitrlnMagistrate' Cyberabad at Rajendranagar'RangaReddy} District.

¶37

District.

¶38

1. The^{Station HouseOfficer' Raiendranagar PoliceStation' Cyderabad'Ranga} . T::H:t:ttl"^{purrr"Prosecutor'High courtror the Stateor relansanaat} HYderabzrd IOUTI

¶39

One^{gQ te liri M liBasith'Advocate [OPUCI} 5.^{Two CD Ootries}

GJ^{*</sup> },-.}

HIGH CCIUR rr'

DATED:16109t2022

ORDER

liiE SrA
<br>+
(i 30 0i[ ?0?2
I

CRLP.No.,l27 ol'202A

DISMISSING T}IE CRL

AS INFRI.'CTUC)IJS

6x*\€.\

Mohd. Irfan Mohiuddin v. The State of Telangana And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Irfan Mohiuddin 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

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

Md. Abdul Razak Vs The State of Telanagana

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

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