Disposed

Smt. Ameena Unnisa,and 8 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC16 Mar 2023CRLP/2606/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings against nine accused in a domestic violence case involving trespass and beat-up. The court directed the investigation to conclude without coercive coercive measures against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

D directed the Investigating Officer to conclude investigation without taking any coercive steps against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 9. Petitioners must cooperate with investigation.

Smt. Ameena Unnisa,and 8 others Vs The State of Telangana… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

I AL PETI ON NO: 26 6 F

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Smt Ameena Unnisa Wo M.D.Farook Mohiuddin

¶8

2 Mohd Ziauddin S/o Mohd Fasiuddin Ahmed

¶9

3 Mohd Salahuddin S/o Mohd Fasiuddin Ahmed

¶10

4 Mohd Zaheeruddin S/o Mohd Faiuddin

¶11

5 Smt Zeenathunissa W/o Khajanaseerudd in Ahmed

¶12

6 Smt Ahmediunissa W/o Sheik Mohiuddin

¶13

7 Ahmed @ Khaja Naseeruddin Ahmed S/o late Khaja Mohiuddin Ahmed

¶14

B Faizan @ Mohd Mohiuddin S/o Mohd Khaja Naseeruddin

¶15

9 Farkhan @ Mohd. Mohiuddin S/o Khaja Naseeruddin Ahmed

¶16

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 to 9

¶17

AND

¶18

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

¶19

Respondent

¶20

M.D.Farook Mohluddin s/o late Mohd Gulam Mohiuddin R/o H.No.17-1135/8/2, Edi Bazar, Moulana Azad nagar, Hyderabad

¶21

...RESPONDENT / De facto COMPLAINANT

¶22

Petition u rder Sectron 482 of Cr.P.C pr-; r,ing that in the circumstances sti tod in the Memorandum of Ground:; of Criminal Petition, the High Court niry be pleased to quash the procr:e dings against the petitioner/accuse, I lrerson No.1 to 9 in Crime No.27 /2022 of Police Station Madannapet on tl^,e file of the VII Additional Chiei' Metrc)politan lvlagistrate at Nam pally, Hydl ra bad

¶23

I.A. NO:2 OF 20:3

¶24

Petition ur Cr:r Section 482 of Cr. P.C pra Ting that in the circumstances sta:ed in the Memorandum of Ground:; rrf Criminal Petition, the High Court m. y be pleased to stay all further Droce:( ings in Crime No. 27/2022 of Police :;tation Madannapet on the f le c,f tre VII Additional Chief Metropolitar 14aqistrate at Nampally, Hyder-aba,C i rclt ding arrest of the Petitioner/Acc rsed Person No. 1 to 9 pending disccsal of the above criminal petition.

¶25

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusinlJ^r:he Memorandum of Grounds of Cri ninal Petition and upon hearing the ;,rguments of Mr. Mirza Mahmood Al Etaig, Advocate for the Petitioner anJ Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behall c,f the Respondent No. 1 and None: appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶26

The Court made t 1e following: ORDER

I I

I I

THE HONOURABLE SRI ]USTICE K.SURENDER

¶31

CRIMINAL PETITION No.26O6 OF 2023

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1,973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitionersAccused Nos.1 to 9 to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.27 of 2022 of Station House Officer, Madannapet Police Station, Hyderabad pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad for the offences under Sectlons 448, 324 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "rPC1.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners - Accused Nos.1 to 9 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 -^{State. Perused the material on record.}

¶35

Respondent No.2 who is the husband of accused No.l filed the present complaint stating that his wife and her relatives trespassed into the premises and beat up the de facto complainant.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that accused No.1/wife of respondent No.2 has filed a case under

¶37

-I

¶38

Section a9[ of LP.C which is pending for inrestiq;r1 itn, deliberately false compl lint is filed. Keeping in view the nt.rtri rrrtnial differencq, between a< clrsed No.1 and respondent No..2, thi,; rlourl deems it appropriate t,l direct the Investigating Offi:er r t.espect of FIR No.27 of 20)-r: of Station House Officer, Madannap:t^po ice Station, Hyderabad to conclude the investigation with:t t :aking any coercive str rp; against the petitioners - r\ccusr::' Ncs.1 to 9. Further, thr petitroners shall co-operate hrth tlr. Irvest.rgating Officer as ar d when required for the purpose ,tf ir.vr:s:rgation.

¶39

Accorc ingly, the Criminal Petition is dispcsed rtf

¶40

Miscellarreous applications pending, if ary, sha I stand closed.

¶41

Sd/- B CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSIS.I-,,\NT REGISTRAR llrRUEcoPY/l ( b S;EiCTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The VII Ad ditional Chief^{Metropolitan Magistr;t.eatNampally,} H ydera ba d.

¶44

The Station I- ouse Officer, Madannapet^{PoliceStaticnHyderabad}

¶45

Two CC Publi F)rosecutor, High Court of^{ludicaturerlt Hy'Jerabad For} the State oi I elangana.

¶46

One CC to M rza Mahmood Ali Bai9,^Advocate [OPU':-

¶47

Two CD Copit s

%q@fl

HIGH COUR T

DATED: 16.C3.2023

ORDER

/
:r:
I. q( ;l
1

cRL PNO. 2(.06 0F 2023

¶55

DISPOSING--HE CRIMINAL P!:TlTlON

¶56

7-;[;:;tr-
1
h fra+

Smt. Ameena Unnisa,and 8 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ameena Unnisa,and 8 others 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

Mohammed Farooq Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. P. Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana and another

Nageswar Rao.K Vs State of Telangana and another

Guntakanti Venkatarameshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

S.Nagaraju Gupta Vs The State of Telangana

V. Narsinga Rao Vs The State of Telangana