Partly allowed

Syed Inkeshafunnisa v. Abdul Mannan

Telangana HC4 Jul 2022CRLP/4756/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court conditionally allowed a criminal petition under CrPC 482 seeking to reopen witness evidence and conduct via video conference. The court set aside the trial order dismissing the application for recalling a key witness who resided abroad but submitted a false affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing recall of PW1 was set aside. PW1 is directed to appear physically at the trial court without adjournment. Video conferencing facility is denied due to false affidavit and lack of

Syed Inkeshafunnisa Vs Abdul Mannan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4756 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Syed lnkeshafunnisa, D/o. Syed Ghulam Dastagir Hussaini, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H.No. 12-1-55613, Syed Ali Guda, Hyderabad, Presently R/o. Germany, Represented by her brother and G.P.A holder, Syed Gulam lVluzzammil Hussain, S/o. Syed Ghulam Dastagir Hussaini, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Engineer, No.7-212p, Plot No.2, Padma Sree Hills, Bandlaguda Jagir, R.R District.

¶9

...Petitioner / Defacto Complainant

¶10

AND

¶11

Abdul Mannan, S/o. Sultan Abdullah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Employee at abroad, Rl/o. H. No. 23-1 -7 17 I 1 I A, Near Allahuddin Masjid, Moghalpura, Hyderabad. (A-l)

¶12

Sultan Abdullah, S/o. Late Abdul Lateef, Rl/o. H.No. 23-1-717111A, Near Allahuddin Masjid, Moghalpura, Hyderabad. (Abated as died) (A-2)

¶13

Nasreen Fatima, W/o. Sultan Abdullah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H.No. 23-1 -7 1 7 I 1 I A, Near Allahuddin Masjid, lVloghalpura, Hyderabad. (A-3)

¶14

Respondent / Accused

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

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 order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 293 of 2022 in C.C.No. 149 of 2016 on the file of the XV Additional Chief fi/etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and consequently recall PW-1 for further examination and to direct the court below to record her evidence through video conference in C.C.No. 149 of 2016 on the file of the XV Additional Chief^. Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in the interest of^justice.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶19

Petition under liection 482 of cr. P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorardum of Grounds of criminal^petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all f rrther proceedings in c.c.No. 149 of 2o16 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Mr:tropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the criminal petition before this Honorable High Court.

¶20

l.A. NO: :2 OF 2022

¶21

Pe,tition under f.iection 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorerndum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleasr-'d to grant leirve to the petitioner to file the criminal petition against the orders passed in crl.M P.No. 293 of 2022 in c.c.No.149 of 2016 on theiile of the xv Addit onal chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad before this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal P,-'tition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C SHARAN REDDY ,Advocate for^-he Petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Resp,rndent No. 4 ;rnd of Sri. S. Pradeep Kumar for the Respondent No. 1 & 3

¶23

The Coult made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4756 of 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Challenge in this criminal petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of XV Additionai Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Cr1.M.P.No.293 of 2022 in C.C.No.149 of 2016 dated 26.04.2022.

¶28

An application was filed by the complainant under Section 3 1 1 Cr.P. C, seeking the Court to reca-lI Pw1 for further examination. In the same application another relief was sought i.e., to record the evidence of Pw1 through video conference. The said application was dismissed by order dated 26.04.2022. Aggrieved by the ssme, the defacto complainant is before this Court.

¶29

Heard the submission of Sri C.Sharan Reddy who argued on behalf of the revision petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar who argued on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in C.C. No.149

¶31

¶32

Dr.CSL, J Crl.P,No.4756 of 2O22

¶33

c1 2016 which is pending on the fiIe of the Court of XV Additionat Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Her e.idence in chief was recorded in part and thereafter, she left to Germany for pursuing her education. Subsequently her evidence was closed. An application was filed seeking to reopen her evidence i.e., evidence of pwl, but the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioner is before this Court. The learned counsel also states that as the petitioner is at Germany, she could not approach the Court and give her evidence and hence an application to record her evidence through video conference was also sought, but her request was negatived.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submits that the criminal case is of the year 2016 ald the petitioner is dragging on the proceedings since then. The learned counsel also submits that the 1"t accused got emplo5rment opportunity abroad but as his passport was seized, he could not get the job and facing trial, he is still in India. But, the defacto complainant i.e., petitioner herein is dragging on the proceedings. Learned

¶35

7',

¶36

¶37

Dr.CSL, ,tr Crl.P.No.4756 of 2022

¶38

counsel brought to tl.e notice of this Court an aflidavit given by the petitioner/defacto complainant and submitted that the said affidavit is a fake document and considering the same, the application filed for recalling Pw1^was dismissed.

¶39

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, the stamp paper over which^the affidavit was drafted is shown to be^{purchased on} O4.O4.2O:22 and the verification was^done by the^petitioner herein on the same day at Germany.^However, it^{is not in} dispute that even the chief examination of^{Pwl is not} completed. Unless and until the defacto complainant^is examined in chief and, thereafter^subjected to^cross examination, it will not be^possible for^{the prosecutionto} establish its case beyond^{reasonable doubt before the trial} Court, in normal circumstances.^{No doubt, the material} brought on record more^{particularly,the order rendered} discloses that the petitioner herein^{also filed a memo before} the trial Court that she does not^{deposeconfidenceupon} are the proceedings of the Court. However, the^Coults

¶40

¶41

Dr.CSL, J Crl.P.No.4756 of 2O22

¶42

bound to do justice even to the persons doing injustice. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, this Court is of the view that it is not justifiable on pa.rt of the Court to deny opportunity for pw1 to come before the Court and give evidence. However as the affidavit given is established to be a false affidavit and as there is no material on record to show the place where the pw1 is residing at present ald further as Pwl did not inform the Court that she is leaving t].e countrJr, it is her bounden duty in case she tvants to establish the case before the Court, to come before the court and give evidence. The facility of video conferencing cannot be given to the person who lails to estabrish her residential particulars in clear terms and who has given a false aftidavit

¶43

Therefore. with the above observations the revision petition is allowed conditionally.

¶44

B. The order rendered by the Court of XV Additionat Chief Metropolital - Magistrate, Hyderabad in Cr1.M.P.No.293 of 2022 in C.C.No.749 ot 2016 dated

¶45

-7

¶46

¶47

D?.CSL, J Crl.P.No.4756 of 2022

¶48

¶49

¶50

26.04.2022 is set aside. The evidence of Pw1 thus is reopened. However, Pw 1 shall appea-r before the Court of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on the day fixed and give her evidence before the Court of Law without seeking any further adjournments. The Court of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,^Hyderabad is directed to fix a date giving at least two weeks' time^for Pwl to appear before the Court ald^give her evidence.^On the day fixed, Pw1 shall appear and^give her^{evidence. In} case of failure to do so, the trial Court is at liberty^{to close} the evidence and to proceed with the matter.^{With the} above directions, the Revision petition is^{disposed of.}

¶51

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications,^if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR qb

¶54

SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To,

¶56

The XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶57

The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Charminar, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶58

One CC to SRl. C SHARAN REDDY Advocate IOPUC]

¶59

One CC to SRl. PRADEEP KUMAR SRIRAI,/BHATLA Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

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

¶61

Two CD copies

¶62

One spare copy

JIV '\{}

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410712022

ORDER

CRLP.No.4756 ot 2022

{€L4
<br>,J .$
?.
s I
,t
,J
\
.J ir lt$

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶70

WITHOUT COSTS

Syed Inkeshafunnisa v. Abdul Mannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Inkeshafunnisa v. Abdul Mannan

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

Abdullah Vs Mohammed

M Mahboob Shareef, Hyderabad Vs Mohd Mubasheer Ahmed, Hyderabad

T. Mohan Vs M/s.Matha Constructions

B Machender Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Surya Kumari and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

C. Uma Vs The State of Telangana and another