Partly allowed

Mohammed Abdul Khader v. The State of Telangana And Another

Telangana HC19 Jul 2022CRLP/4799/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of three criminal proceedings involving a matrimonial dispute. The Court directed trial courts to issue summons immediately and conclude trial within three months. It set aside an order cancelling bail and directed the petitioner to execute a fresh bond with an undertaking not to leave India until the final judgment. Earlier petitions for permission to travel abroad were

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling bail was set aside; petitioner directed to execute fresh bond and undertake not to leave India; trial court directed to dispose of case within three months.

Mohammed Abdul Khader Vs The State of Telangana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

'.1! IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. : 4770 and 4799 OF 2022

¶6

And

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.72OF 2022

¶8

Crl.P.No. 4770 of 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mohammed Abdul Khader, S/o Late Md. Sharif, aged about 51 yrs, Occ. Pvt service, RJo H.no. 9-4-32l2lN, Lions Town Colony, Hasmathpet, Alwal.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana , through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶14

Smt. Wajida Akthari Begum, Wo Md.Abdul Khadeer, age about 5'1yrs, Occ.Business, R/o H. No.9-4-32l2/A, Loins Town Colony, Near St.Mary' s High ..RESPOND ENT

¶15

School, Hasmathpet, Old Bowenpally.

¶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 call for the records relating to orders passed by the Xxlll M.tvl.at lr,ledchal, Cyberabad in CrLMP No. 1 120/1 of 2022, dated 3rd June 2022, and quash the same in the interest of justice

¶17

l.A- NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

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 grant interim orders thereby permitting the petitioner to travel to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for employment period of 6 months, pending quash Petition in the interest of JUstice.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHAMIT,4AD ADNAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri AMIN ALI ALLAUDDIN, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4799 OF 2022

¶22

Between:

¶23

Mohammed Abdul Khader, S/o Late Md Sharif, aged about 51^yrs, Occ. Pvt service, R/o H.no. 9-4-32121N, Lions Town Colony, Hasmathpet, Alwal

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

'l . The State of Telangana , through P.P. High Court, Hyderabad

¶27

Smt. Wajida Akthari Begum, W/o Md.Abdul Khadeer, age about 51yrs, Occ. Business, Ri/o H.No.9-4-32121A, Loins Town Colony, Near St.Marys High School, Hasmathpet, Old Bowenpally.

¶28

.,.RESPONDENT

¶29

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to orders passed by the XXlll M.M at Medhcal, Cyberabad in Crl.tv1.P No^'l 120/2 of 2022 daled 3'd June 2022 and quash the same in the interest of^justice

¶30

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶31

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 grant interim orders thereby suspending the Look Out Circular pending against lhe petitioner in order to enable him to travel to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for employment pending quash petition, in the interest of justice.

¶32

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶33

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C prayang that in the circunrstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Pelition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the order passed by the learned XXlll MM al tVedchal Cyberabad in Crl lr/.P No 112012O22 dated 3rd June 2022, pending quash petition in the interest of^justice

¶34

This Petition coming on,for hearing,upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunrents of Sri MOHAMMAD ADNAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Sri AN4IN ALI ALLAUDDIN. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶35

GBIlyllNAL REVISION cASE^{N9l 72 OF 2022}

¶36

Crl.Revision Case Under Section 397 R/w.401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 19-0'l-2022 in Crl.M.P.No. 23 of 2021 in Crime No. 803 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Xl Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court ) Ranga Reddy District at Medchal

¶37

Between:

¶38

Mohammed Abdul Khader, S/o. Late Mohammed Shareef, Aged About 51 years, Occ. Business, Rlo 9-4-32121A, Lions Town Colony, Hasmathpet, Near St. Marys High School, Old Bowenpally, Mano Vikasnagar, Secunderabad.

¶39

...PETITIONER/ Respondent No.2 / Accused

¶40

AND

¶41

Wajida Akhtari Begum, Wo Mohammed Abdul Khader, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.9-4-32lZA, Lions Town Colony, Hasmathpet, Near St. Marys High School, Old Bowenpally, Mano Vikasnagar, Secunderabad. .. Respondent / Petilioner / Defacto Complainant

¶42

The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana

¶43

...RESPONDENT/ Complainant

¶44

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶45

Petition under Section 397 (1) & 401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders dated 19.01.20'12 passed by the Hon'ble Xl Addl District and Sessions Judge ( fast Track )RR District at Medchal in Crl MP No. 23 of 2021 in Crime No. 803 of 2021 lill the disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. H. SUDHAKARA RAO

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : SRI AMIN ALI ALLAUDDIN

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : THE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR

¶49

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶50

¶51

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶52

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.477O and 4799 of 2022

¶53

AND

¶54

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.72 of 2022

¶55

COMMON ORDER:

¶56

Since the issue involved in these cases is similar and inter-reiated, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶57

Criminal Petition Nos.4770 and 4799 of 2022 were filed challenging the common order that is renderecl by the Court of III Additiona-l Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal, in Crl.MP.No.ll2OlL and Crl.MP.No. 1l2Ol2 of 2022 in C.C.No.2243 of 2021, dated 03.06.2022 that stood pending on the file of.the said Court.

¶58

Criminal Revision Case No.72 of 2O22 is hled challenging the order that is rendered bv the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddl' District at Medchal, in Cr1,M.P.No.23 of 2O2l in Crime No.B03 of 2021, dated 19.o).2022.

¶59

¶60

t r. CSL.J Cd P No 1770 of2022 and batch

¶61

Heard the submission of Sri Mohd. Adnan, who appeared for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.4770 and 4799 of 2022. Also heard 1n Sri H. Sudhakar Rao, u'ho appeared for the same pa-rty Cr1.R.C.No.72 of 2022. Also heard Sri Amin Ali Allauddin, learned counsel for unofficia-l respondent i.e. defacto complainant. Also heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶62

These proceedings depict a strange interplay ol facts a-nd also demonstrate holv disputes betlr,een the husband and wife grew, which ultimatell' culminates into destruction of family life.

¶63

The petitioner (hereinafter be relerred as "husband") in all the three proceedings moved tu'o applications vide Crl.MP.No.lI2Oll arrd Crl.MP.No.II2Ol2 of 2022, both in C.C.No.2243 of 2027, secking thc Court to permit him to leave the country on employment and for suspension of the Look-out Circular Notice that \'as issued against him. Those two applications stood dismissed through order dated 03.06.2022.

¶64

The husband was enlerrged on bail and seeking the Court to cancel the said bail, rcspondent No.2 (hereinafter be referred as

¶65

, //'

¶66

¶67

Dr. CSL.J Crl.P No.4770 of2022 and harch

¶68

"rvife") moled an application vide Cr1.P.No.23 of 2O2l before the Court of XI Additior-ral District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddv District. The said application was allowed and the bail granted to the husbald vide order in Crl.MP.No.1841 of 2021, dated 08.11.2021 by the Court of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cvberabad at Medchal, u'as ca,ncelled and the husband was directed t o surrender before the Court within a month. Challenging that order, the husband preferred revision case. This Court, ivhile entertaining I.A.No.1 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.72 of 202'2, vide order dated O8.O2.2022 suspended the said order of cancellation of bail.

¶69

Beforc this Cor-rrt on this day, Iearned counsel appearing for the hrrsband argued contending that the husband has got everv right to move ollt ol the country for his livelihood and the '"r'ife is not expected to resist his movements.

¶70

()n t:lc other hand, learned counsel for the wife contends that u'hen criminal proceedings are pending before the Court, the husbzu'rd is not expected to leave the country and thereby stall the proceed ings

¶71

¶72

Dr. CSI- J Cd P No 4710 of2Oll and hat.'h

¶73

On a perusal of the order, by which the bail was cancelied, this Court finds that the order, through which bail was granted, was cancelled mainl_',, on the ground that the learned Magistrate, who enlarged the husband on bail, failed to take note of Section 7(c) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Ma-rriage) Act, 2019. Learned counsel for the wife states that as per the said provision, before gralt of bail, a notice has to be issued to the defacto compiainant i.e. rvife and therea-fter upon hearing her, a decision has to be taken. But that procedure is not followed Learnecl counsel for the lvife also states that when bail u,as cancelled, it is for the husband to surrender before the Court, but he did not do so.

¶74

I 1. Vehementiv opposing the said submission, learned counsel for the husband states that the impugned order, by which bail rvas calcelled, stood suspended for the time being.

¶75

Keeping the above allegations laid against each other asicle, it is observed that the proceedings are pending before the Court concerned in C.C.No.2213 of 2021 for more than one year. This Cqurt is of the vieu' that it u'ould be better if the said Calendar

¶76

¶77

5 Dr CSI l ( rl.P \a.1a7Ll ofl0ll and balch

¶78

Case is disposed of time bound, so that each partv n'ould be at libertr' to pursue their occupation and to lead a^peaceful life

¶79

Accordingly, learned counsel for the respective parties agreed to direct the trial Court to dispose of C.C.No.2243 of 2O2l time bound, so that the matter would be settled.

¶80

1-+.^'l'he learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also stated that time-line may be fixed for the tria-l Court to dispose of C C No.2243 of2021.

¶81

Thr-rs, having regard to the submissions made, this Court disposes of all these three cases i.e. Nos.477O and -1799 of 2022 arrd Crl.R.C.No.72 of 2022 witlr the follovving clirection:

¶82

l'he Court of III Additional Junior Civil .Juclge cr-rm-XXIIi Metrol>olitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medcl-ral. is directed to takt' rrp C.C.No.2243 of 2O2l on daily basis arrd clispose of thc sirmc rls early as possible, preferabl.v "','ithin a period of three (3) morrths. The order rendered by the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranger Redd_r' District at Meclclral, in Crl.MP.No.23 of 2O2l in Crime No.803 of 2O21,, dated

¶83

¶84

D. CSL.J Crl P No {170^ot l0ll lnd^har.h

¶85

19.O1 .2022 is set aside. The husband i.e. pe titioner ln Crl.R.C.No.72 of 2022 shall continue to be on bail on his executing a fresh personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,OO0/(Rupees one lal<h only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satislaction of the Court concerned i-e. Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. Further, the husband has to submit an undertaking in writing stating that he u'ould not leave the country till pronouncement of judgment in C.C.No.2243 of 2021.

¶86

With the above directions, all the three cases i.e. Nos.4770 and 4799 of 2022 and Cr1.R.C.No.72 of 2022 are disposed of

¶87

1 B. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if an,r'. shall

¶88

stald closed.

¶89

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGTSTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶90

¶91

The Xl Additionat District^{and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Courtat} Ranoa Reddv District at Medchal 2. i[" iii eoaitilonal Juni6iCivil^{Judge- cum- XXlll Metropolitan} Maoistrate. Cvberabad, Medchal,^{Ranga Reddy District'} 3. iiiJ xirr rir.jtto'p.titan^{Niagistrate,Cvbe rauao,Ran ga Reddv.District} 4. fii" Sirti"" X.use^{Office-r,Alwal Pblice Station, Cyberabad} '^Ranga Reddy District. 5. 2 CCs to Public Prosecutor,^{Iligh Court for the Statcof 'I'clangantat} Ilvderabad.^(OUT) 6. Onc CC to SRI. AMIN^{ALI ALLAUDDDIn-Advocatc} 7. Onc CC to SRI. N{OHANIMAD^{ADNAN,,\rhocatc} IOPUCI 8. Onc CC to Sri H. Sudhakar^{Rao, Advocate} IOPti(ll 9. Two CD Copies 10. One Spare^CoPY $-

f,l

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910712022

COMMON ORDER

-( :).
[ 2 sEP ?[Il
.

¶99

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. : 4770 and 4799 OF 2022

¶100

And

¶101

CRIM]NAL REVISION CASE NO. 72 OF 2022

¶102

DISPOSING OF THE CRL.PETITIONS N ND CITt,.R.(-.

¶103

@S6r"

Mohammed Abdul Khader v. The State of Telangana And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Abdul Khader 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

Perni Aneesha Vs The State of Telangana

M. Sandhya Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

K. Chenchurami Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Ediga Anjaneyulu Goud (A-1) Vs Smt. Anitha

Mohammed Abdul Khader Vs Wajida Akhtari Begum

Mohammed Abdul Khader Vs the State of Telangana