Dismissed

Taher Ali Siddiqui, Hyd v. Syed Rashed Ahmed, Hyd

Telangana HC12 Jul 2023CRLP/13876/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed Criminal Petition No.13876 of 2014 for default. The petitioner failed to appear on multiple listed dates including the hearing, showing lack of interest to prosecute the case despite the matter being captioned 'for dismissal'.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was dismissed for default. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.

Taher Ali Siddiqui, Hyd Vs Syed Rashed Ahmed, Hyd — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^329e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

c INAL PETITION NO: 1 876 F20 4

¶7

Between:

¶8

Taher Ali Siddiqui, S/o. Mohd. Vazeer Ali, Aged^{44 years, Occ Civil Engineer,} No.^17-2' 1 81 136l A, Waheed Colony, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.

¶9

PETTTTONERiACCUSED(S)

¶10

ANO

¶11

Syed Rashed Ahmed, S/o. Syed Mubashir Ahmed Aged 44^years, Occ: Employee at Abroad, FVo. H.No.'17-4-29, Masjid-E-Kamela, Yakutpura,^{Hyderabad. Rep.} by^Power of Attorney Syed Akheel Ahmed S/o.^{Ali Ahmed,Aged35 years,Occ: Teacher, fuo.} H.No.17-4-715, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶13

.RESPONDENT/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 direct the lower court to allow the^petitioner to^produce the further defence witness in his favour in C.C. No- 45712013 on the file of Hon'ble XXll Special [tlM,^Erramanzil, Hyderabad on such terms and conditions as this^{Hon'ble court} deems^{fit andproper.}

¶15

CRLPMP. NO: 14658 0F 2014

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying lhatⁱⁿ the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the HighCourt maybe pleased} to stay^; all the^proceedings in C.C.No.45712013 oo^{the file} of^Hon'ble XXll^{SpecialMagistrate,} Erramanzil, Hyderabad on such terms and^{conditionsas this Hon'blecourt deems fit and} proper

¶17

.^{This Petition comingon for hearing, upon perusingtheMemorandumof Grounds} of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri KHAJA ZIAUDDIN, Advocate} for the Petitioner being not^present and the Public^Prosecutor for the State of^Telangana on behalf ofthe Respondent No.2 and of Sri^{SRl. SHAFATHAHMED KHAN,Advocatefor} the Respondent No.1

¶18

The Court made thc following: ORDER

¶19

l l

¶20

I I

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOF,AL

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13876 of 2OL4

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

T1-re prt'sent Crimir-rirl Petition is filed nnder Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order pzLssed 1n Crl.M.P.No.1627 ol' 2O11 in C.C.No.457 of 2013 dated 09 .O9.2O14 bv thc learned XXII Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, I lydera[rerd

¶25

No reprcsentation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. V izarath Ali, learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- St ate

¶26

A perusal of record shows that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 27 .06.2023 and 04 .O7 .2023. Even today a.lso, there ls no representation on behalf of the petitioner in spite o' iisting the matter tLnder the caption "for dismissa-l". This shows that the petitioner is not evincing any interest to pr()secute

the case.

4. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition^{is dismissed for}

¶31

default

¶32

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending^{if any, shall stand}

¶33

closed

¶34

Sd/. K.^VENKAIAH ASSISTANISEGISTRAR /ffRUE^COPY// sEcrL#N oFFlcER

¶35

To,

¶36

2 c 4 5	The XXll^{SpecialMagistrateErramanzil'Hyderabad} TwoCCs^{to PUBLICPROSECUTOR'HighCourt fortheState of Telangana} atHyderabad [OPUC] TheStation^{HouseOfficer,PoliceStation,Rei'P,0oi7-,Sldf'!"LtJ'} OneCC^{toSRl.KHAJA ZIAUDDIN,Advocate[OPUC]} OneCC^{toSRl.SHAFATHAHMEDKHAN' Advocate [OPUC]}
6	TwoCD^CoPies pr
*
! \|

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210712023

ORDER

CRLP.No.13876 of 2014

¶41

.--Z
S ir<br>5.r',
(
q) l. t; I
.J ? i fiuBlm )-t
.!: .'/
'_'-. ::: -1i.;a :

¶42

DISMISSING THE CRL.P

¶43

FOR DEFAULT

¶44

,td @

Taher Ali Siddiqui, Hyd v. Syed Rashed Ahmed, Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taher Ali Siddiqui, Hyd v. Syed Rashed Ahmed, Hyd

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

R.Purushothama Chary, Warangal Dt., Vs R.Kavya , Santhoshi, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

M/S. Sehgal Motors Pvt. Ltd., and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana and Another

Dudem Rathamma, Karimnagar., Vs Dudem Narsiah, Karimnagar Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Lavarthy Santosh Vs the State of A.P. and Another

N.Ravindra Reddy Vs the State of Telangana and 2 Others

Renu Singh Vs Ramakant Gilda and Another