Dismissed

Smt. Sheeba Khan, Hyd., v. Abdul Waheed Khan, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC3 Jul 2023CRLP/15494/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 439(2) CrPC seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent. The petition was found infructuous as the parties had amicably settled the matter by a compromise.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous due to settlement/compromise between parties.

Smt. Sheeba Khan, Hyd., Vs Abdul Waheed Khan, Hyd and Anr… — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: '154)4 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

SMT SHEEBA KHAN, Wo. Abdul Waheed Khan, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No. 1B-124181D11 , Hafez Baba Nagar, Hyderabad

¶10

AND

¶11

...PET|TIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

'1. ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, S/o. Late Abdul Azeez Khan, REp pp., Occ: Ex. Service Men, R/o H.No 18-12418/D/1 , Opp. Dr. Khayam Khan Street Hafez Baba Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its P.P, High Court. At Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 439 (2) 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 cancel the Regular Bail which was granted by the court Xlll Addl. chief Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court Hyderabad in Crl.M. p. No. 1920 of 2014, which filed in Crime No. 91 of 2014 ol Kanchanbagh^police Station, Hyderabad.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri JAKKAMSETTI RAVINDRA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the of Sri Vizarath Ali, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri p. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEE'V'VENI'GOPAL} 40F 2014 CRIMI NAL PE^{TITIONNo.1549}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal^{Pe tttton1sfiled under Section a3912\ ol} Cr.P.C.,^{by the petitioner' u'ho is the de-facto t:omplainanttn} Crime^{No.91 of2Ol2 on the file of thePolice Station'} Kanchanbagh,^{Hyderabad seeking cancellation of regularbail} granted^{to respondentNo'1 b1' the learned XIII AdditionalChief} Hyderabad^as Per^the Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Mahila Court'} orders in^{Crl.M.P'No'1920 ol 20l4'}

¶21

2 Heard Sri^{Jakkatr-r setti Ravinder' learned counseifor} and learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutor'} the Petltloner No Prosecutor^{for State'} representing^{learned Purtrlic} representation^{on beh'llf of SriP.Vamsheedhar ReddY, learned} counsel^{for the unofficialrespondent'}

¶22

The^{petitroner hercin is thewife ofunofficial} respondent^{and got regrstered Crime No'91of 2OI4 on the file of} the Police^{Station, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad for the offences} punishable^{under Section 498-A ol IPC and uncler Sections 3 and} 4 of D.P.Act^{against hcr husband and others alleging harassment}

¶23

I'age 2 ofj

¶24

and avotding nature of her husband wherein during investigation, the police hai'e added section 354 of lpc also against the accused No.2. Further, as per the impugned order the 1st respondent got regular bail. The presenr Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by grarr t of regurar bait to the l"t respondent alleging that the said order rvas passetl basing on the face value of the complaint and hearing the contentions of the public prosecutor and without giving opportunity to the petitioner herein to explain her grievance.

¶25

During course of arguments, learned counsel Mrsr Krishnaveni, represe.ting iearned counser for the petitio,er informed that the parties have amicably settled the matter by ,,vay of a compromise and hence, no further orders are required and seeks to dismiss the criminal petition as infructuous. Learned Assistant public prosecutor reported no objection to the same.

¶26

5 In view of the above submissions on behalf of learnecl counsel for petiticner and also the no objection reported by learned Assistant public prosecutor, this Court

¶27

IS inclined to dismiss the present criminal petition as infructuous as no useful purpose would survive in continuing the same.

¶28

Pagc 3 of3

¶29

In the result, this Criminal petition is dismissed as

¶30

infructuous. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, sha11 also

stands dismissed

Sd/. G, SIREESHA

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

L, SECTI ON OFFICER

To,

The Xlll Addl. Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court Hyderabad}

¶38

The Station House^{Officer, Kanchanbagh Police Station, Hyderabad.}

¶39

One CC to Sri Jakkamsetti^{Ravindra,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶40

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana^(OUT)

¶41

Two CD Copies

BJLB

I f /

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/07/2023

3l ATE o
a
I
o r\ N$ NB :i
i

¶48

ORDER

¶49

CRLP.No.15494 ot 2014

¶50

CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶51

8ot
d d:a

Smt. Sheeba Khan, Hyd., v. Abdul Waheed Khan, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sheeba Khan, Hyd., v. Abdul Waheed Khan, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Subba Rao, Vs State of Telangana

T.Swarup Kumar Vs Sujatha Devi and 2 Others

Nalla Santosh Reddy, Hyd and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Durgam Priyanka Mercy, Medak Dist. Vs Durgam Issac, Guntur Dist. and Ano

G. Shanker, Nalgonda Dist. Vs Sho, Alair P.S., Nalgonda Dist. and Ano

Golle , Golla Pullaiah, Karimnagar and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.