Dismissed

Noorjahan Mohanma Hanif Sayyad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Jan 2022CRLP/76/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana considered a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a dowry-related case. Finding allegations general and facts triable, the court dispensed with personal appearance of accused petitioners and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Personal appearance of petitioners in C.C. No. 182 of 2017 at Nagarkurnool dispensed with; criminal petition dismissed.

Noorjahan Mohanma Hanif Sayyad Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION N O: 76^{oF 2022}

¶5

BETWEEN: l.Noorjahan^{MohammaHanifSavyadW9' Mola-Tl:dllanifSavvad'} - .g",i6iV.rts,Occ:Housewife.n/o'H'No'1614/8,Sanglinaka' KolhapurDistrict,^Maharastra.
2.Mohammad^{HanifSayyadS/o. AbdulMohammad Saheb'} - ug;Jii^{y"uts, occ:} 'RetiredTeacher,R/o'H'No't61418'Sanglinaka' Kolhapur District,^Maharastra.
3.Syed AsmaWo.^{Siraj, aged35 Years,} Occ:Teacher,^{n/o.H'ru0.1614/8,Sanglinaka,} Kolhapur District,^Maharastra.
4.NagmaPraveenWo.^{Hussain aged 26years,} - Oci:House^{Wife,R/o. H'No.3-3-4lA'MadinaMazjid,} BharathTalkies^{Road, Mahabubnagar'} I
5.Sayyad^{NaziyaD/0.MohammedHaneef,aged24years'} - O.lStrO.ni;R/0. H'No. 1614/8,Sanglinaka, KolhaPurDistrict,^Maharastra' 6.Mohammad^{AzharS/o. MohamrladHaneef,aged24years'} Occ:StudenUUo.^{H.No. 1614/8,Sanglinaka,} KolhapurDistrict,^Maharastra' ..,petitioner/Ac^{cused.z L7} AND
1.TheState of^Telanga, rep. byitsPublic^Prosecutor, HighCouft^{for theStateofTelangana,} Hyderabad.
2.Salma Begum^{D/0.MahabubPasha,aged 20years'} Occ:Houie^{wife,R/0. H'NO.9'91,GandhiNagar'} . eiji;apaffy^{village andMandal, l"lagarkurnoolDistrict'} .,.Respondents.

¶6

Petitionunderse)tion4S2ofCr.P.cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the Memorandum^{of ( )rounds of criminal Petition, the High court ma_y_be pleased} to call for the^{recordsre ratint to and in connectio-nwithC C'No l 82 of 2017 on the} iil"-oi tn" Court^{of the Jt dicia'iMagistrateof First Class, at Nagarkurnool}

¶7

l.A. NO: 1 OF²⁰²²

¶8

PetitionunderS(ction4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the Mlmorandum^{of 3roundsof criminalPetition, the High Co_u rt may be pleased} i" .tr, in"^{proceedings in C.C.11o. fi2 ol 2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial} il;irir;i;^'oi rirti^{crri., atNagarkurnool including appearance of the} Petitioners/Accused^{2 t r 7}

¶9

This Petition^{cc ming on for hearing, upon perusingthe- lvlemorandumof} Grounds of^{Criminal F atitio-n and upon heiring the arguments- of Sri-M SUDHEER} KUMAR'AdvocateforthePetitionersandoftheAdditionalPLrblicProsecutoron behalf of the^{Respond:ntNo.1 and of the RespondentNo.2 not appearedeither in} person or by Advocate

¶10

The Court made^{the fol owing: ORDER}

¶11

HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.76 OF 2022

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard Mr, M. Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the^petitioners and the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. I , and perused the record.

¶14

The present crirrinal petition is filed by the petitioners to^quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 182 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nagarkurnool. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 to 7 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 498.4 read u,ith 34 of IPC and Sections - 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 .

¶15

Perusal ofthe contents ofthe charge sheet in the^{above C.C.} would prima facie rev ea| that the allegations against the^petitioners herein are general in nature and they are triable issues.^{PetitionerNos'1} and 2 are aged parents, petitioner Nos.3^{and 4 are marriedsisters,} petitioner No.5 is unmarried sister^{and petitionerNo.6 is brother of} accused No. l. There are^{matrimonialdisputesbetween accused No.1 and} respondent No.2.

¶16

Considering the above^{said aspects, personalappearanceofthe} petitioners - accused Nos.2^{to 7 in C.C.No.182 of 2017 on the file of} Judicial Magistrate of^{First class at Nagarkurnool,is dispensedwith.}

¶17

However,^{the peti tioners herein shall appearbelore the said Couflas and}

¶18

when their Preser^{ce is required'}

¶19

The^{prt sentCriminal Petitionis accordinglydisposed ot-'}

¶20

As a seq,el'^{the miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in the}

¶21

Crirninal^{Petitic r shallstand closed'}

¶22

SdIK.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .h,SECTION OFFICER

¶23

¶24

The Judicial^Ma listrate^{of First class,at Nagarkurnool,tvlahabubnagar District.} Z. two CCs to Pu^{iiic Prosecutor,High Courtfor the State of Telangana,Hyderabad} (our)

¶25

bne CC to Sri l l.Sudheer^{Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶26

Two CD CoPies

¶27

One Spare Coty

¶28

¶29

\ b"-

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/01/2022

ORDER

CRLP.No.76 of 2022

DISPOSING THE CRI .P. fr\ <sup>Y''1 \ r)-

Noorjahan Mohanma Hanif Sayyad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noorjahan Mohanma Hanif Sayyad 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

P.Yadagiri Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Goli Ajay and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

K. Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Eruku HariShankar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Kotha Janardhan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Perumalla Naveen Kumar Vs Perumalla Tharani