Allowed

Mohammed Abdul Muqeet Aman and 2 Others v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC20 Mar 2023CRLP/560/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a joint petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act based on an executed compromise memo. The court deemed it appropriate to compound offences between spouses and directed the petitioner to pay a sum to Sainik Welfare.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 12964 of 2021 quashed against petitioners; parties directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 with Sainik Welfare within 10 days.

Mohammed Abdul Muqeet Aman and 2 Others Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 560 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohammed Abdul Muqeet Aman, S/o Mohammed Abdul Muqtadar Khalid Aged about 35 yrs, Occ. Pvt Service No B-2-59611h14414, Flat No 201, Taiba Home, Op Karvy, Rd no 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34

¶8

Mohammed Abdul Muqtadar Khalid, S/o Late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem Aged about 65 yrs, Occ. Business No 8-2-596111114414, Flat No 201, Taiba Home, Opp Karvy, Rd No 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad^- 34

¶9

Smt Juhi Fatima, W/o Mohammed Abdul Muqtadar Khalid Aged about 56^yrs, Occ. Household R/o 8-2-596/1111441A, Flat No 201 , Taiba Home, Op Karvy, Rd No 10' Banjara Hills' Hyderabad^- 34

¶10

...pETrroNERS/AccusED 1-3

¶11

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana At Hyderabad

¶13

Zahra Rasheed, D/o Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, Aged about 28^yrs, Occ. Business, R/O Plot No 27, Veterinary Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad

¶14

... RES POND ENT/COM PLAI NAT{TS

¶15

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 Quash the proceedings in CC No 12964 of 2021 on the file of the court of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad as abuse^of process of Court and Law.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2OF 2023

¶17

Between

¶18

Zahra Rasheed, D/o Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, Aged about^{28 yrs,} Occ. Business, R/o Plot No 27' Veterinary colonv' shaikpet' .'-of[11?foaR/RESpoNDENT

¶19

No.2

¶20

¶21

Mohammed Abdul Muqeet Aman, S/o Mohammed Abdul Muqtadar Khalid Aged about 35 yrs, Occ. Pvt Service No 8-2-5961111l44lA,Flat^No 201, Taiba Home, Op Karvy, Rd no 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34

¶22

Mohammed Abdul Muqtadar Khalid, S/o Late Mohammed Abdul Nayeem Aged about 65 yrs, Occ. Business No 8-2-59611111441A, Flat No 201,^Taiba Home, Opp Karvy, Rd No 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 34

¶23

Smt Juhi Fatima, W/o Mohammed Abdul lr/uqtadar^{Khalid Aged about 56 yrs,} Occ Household RYo 8-2-596/1111441A, Flat No 201, Taiba^{Home, Op Karvy,} Rd No 10' Banjara Hills' Hyderabao - to

¶24

...*=apoNDENTS/pETraoNERS

¶25

1. State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana^At Hyderabad

¶26

...RE''oNDENT/RES'.NDENT No.1

¶27

Petition under Section 320⁽³⁾ Rlw 482 of^{Cr.P.C prayingthat} in^the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of CriminalPetition,the High} Court may be^pleased to an order recording the^{compromise and quashthe} proceedings in the case in C.C.No.1296412021 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan tvlagistrate, Hyderabad, against the^petitioners for offences punishable under Section 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,¹⁹⁶¹ in^pursuance of the memorandum of understanding dated 20-12-2022 executed between the^partiesin the interest of^justice.

¶28

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Naseeb Afshan, Advocate for the Petitioner in main Crl.P. and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in l.A.No.2 ol 23 and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'lⁱⁿ Main Crl.P and Respondent No.4 in l.A.No.2 of 2023 of Sri Shyam S.Agarwal Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in main Crl.P and Petitioner in l.A.No.2 of 2023.

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER}

¶31

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.56O OF 2023} ALONG WITH LA.No.2^{OF 20.23}

¶32

COMMON ORDER:

¶33

This Criminal Petition is hled^{under Section482 Cr'P'C,} against the petitioners/A1 to^{A3 seeking to quashthe proceedings} in C.C.No. 12964 of 2O2l^{on the file of the Court of XIII Additional} Chief Metropolitan magistrate^{at Hyderabad. The offencesalleged} against them are under^{Sections 498-A of the IndianPenal Code} and Sections 3 and^{4 of the DowryProhibitionAct.}

¶34

Heard learned counsel^{appearing for the petitioners and} learned Additiona-l Public^{Prosecutorfor the State.Perusedthe} record.

¶35

The petitioners/Al to^{A3 beingprosecuted by the 2na} respondent for the^{offences under Section 498-A of the Indian} Penal Code. The^{2na respondent/defactocomplainant inthe} complaint alleged that^{she marriedAccused No'1 on 06'06'2014} and thereafter several^{disputes arose between them'}

¶36

However, they^{havefiled petition seekingindulgence of this} Court to quash^{the proceedingson the groundof compromise and}

¶37

¶38

filed IA.No.2 of 2023 under Section 32O (2) rlw.482 of the Cr.P.C. along with a Memorandum of Understanding

¶39

Keeping in view that the offence is under Section 498-A and disputes are amongst the spouses, this Court deems it appropriate to allow compounding of offences and quash the proceedings.

¶40

The parties herein have filed a^joint memo of compromise stating that they have settled the disputes between them amicably and 2"d respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the above Case. The said^joint memo of compromise and Memoraldum of Understanding are placed on record.

¶41

7 . Both the parties are present in person and identilied by their respective counsel. The parties, who are present in the Court, admit the Compromise. When learned Additional Public Prosecutor questioned, the defacto complainant/2"d respondent stated that she has no objection 1n quashing the proceedings against this petitioners/Al to A3. Copies of Aadhar Cards are also filed.

¶42

In view of the compromise entered between the petitioners/Al to A3 and respondent No.2, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is

¶43

¶44

¶45

allowed. Consequently, the Crimina-l petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.12964 of 2O2l on the file. of the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate at Hyderabad, is hereby quashed against the petitioners/Ar to 43. petitioners/A1 to A.3 undertake to pa). an amount of Rs. l0,0OO/ -(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.52 188926229, State Bank of India, within a period of ten days from today, and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶46

As a sequel, the misceilaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

C-,D

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Xlll^{Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at.Hvderabad} 2. The Station^{ttouse omcei'"B'ffitl-Hirr'dEti(" st'tion'HvderabadCitv'}

¶53

One CC^{to M/s NaseebAfshan, Advocate(ul-uu).} ;. il; dd i"^{Siisnvims.Asarwal,Advocate(oPUC)} s: iil cc;I"^{Prbli6Prosec"uiot, Higtrcourt of Telangana(oUT)} 6. " Two iffi";*fi'atopy CD^Copies of Joint Compromise Memo Dated 15'02'2023)

¶54

ks,. kanr/4k

¶55

Note : Costs^{of Rs.10,000! paid to the Armed Forces FlagDay Fund (sainik Welfare Fund)} Dt:20.03.2O23

HIGH COURT

KSJ

DATED:2010312023

ORDER

3 1 [liY :tlt3

CRLP.No.560 of 2023 And I.A.No.2 o12023

¶63

Allowing the Crl.P
ivl
)2,
\C
b<br>

¶64

-l

¶65

IN TI{E I]ON'BLD^{I{IGH COUR'I ITORTHI]S1 A]'E OITI'ELANGANA; AT I'IYI)ERABAD}

¶66

Crl. P.No560 oll 2_023

¶67

Between :

¶68

Sri Mohammed Abdul^{Muqeet Amanandothers}

¶69

. Petitioners/Accused No.l to 3

¶70

AND

¶71

The State of Telangana^{and another}

¶72

Respondents/State and Defacto^Conrplainant

¶73

JOINTCOMP^RO MISE^{MEMO ITILEI)EY} ItE_!^{lllIONEI{S AND THE RESPONDENT No.2}

¶74

I It is submitted that the^{abovepetition is filed by theaccusedNo.1 to 3 to quashthe} proceedings in the criminal^{casein C.C.No. 12964/2021on the file of the XIII Additional} bhief Metiopolitan^{Magistrate,Hyderabad againstthe petitionersfor the offences punishable} under Section 498-4 ofthe^{Indian Penal r.jode.1860 rcadwitl.r Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry} Prohibition Act, l96l^{initiated on thecomplainto1'tl,e respondentNo.2.}

¶75

2 It is further submitted^{that on l8-01-2023this Ilon'ble Court was pleased to order notice} before admission. The^{petitionersand the respondent No.2 have settled disputes amicably} and the respondent No.2^{agreed to get thc criminalcaseagainstthe petitionersclosed. No} useful purpose would^{be served if n]atteris keptpending, moreso when the respondehtNo.2} is not lntireSted to^{pursuethe case. As sttch the proceedingsare required to be closed-} Accordingly the^{parties have already executeda deed of memorandum of understanding.}

¶76

J Therefore the^{petitioners and the second respondentpray that this Hon'blecourt maybe} pleased to pass an order^{qrrasfiingthe proceedings in the casein C'C'No'1296412021on the} irle of the Hon'ble^{XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the} petitioners for the offences^{punisliable uiitlcr section 4i8-A,of the IndianPenal Code,1860,} iead with Sections^{3 & 4 of the DovwyProhihition Act, 196l initiated on the complaint of the} respondent No.2,^{in the interest of justiceandpasssuch other orderandorders as this} Hon'ble Court may^{deem ht and proper in thecircumstancesof the case'}

¶77

Place: Hyderabad Date:$-02-2023

¶78

COUNSEL TH ONERS
COLINSEL FOR THE PONDENT No.2

¶79

o.l T T oKERNo.2 )r
P TITI
"uk"f
IL /,
RESPO ENT No.2
A ;)

Mohammed Abdul Muqeet Aman and 2 Others v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Abdul Muqeet Aman and 2 Others v. 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

Cherla Anand Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

A.C. Omkar Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Turaka Madhava Rayudu and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Nandigama Rama Rao Vs State of Telangana and Another

Anugu Madhavreddy and 6 others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Ravi Krishna Vs State of Telangana