Dismissed

Smt. Ayesha Kola, Hyd and Anr. v. State of Telangana, High Court and Anr.

Telangana HC6 Dec 2023CRLP/6555/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashal of proceedings under Sections 417 and 420 IPC. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners despite the matter being listed for dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition seeking quashal of proceedings under Sections 417 and 420 IPC was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Smt. Ayesha Kola, Hyd and Anr. Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETlTloN NO: 6555^{OF 2014}

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Smt. Avesha Kola, Wo.^{Mphd.lsmailKola, Aged about 29 years,Occ:} iouseriite, R/o.H.Nb.19-2-18tBl24,^{Amjad-ul-Bagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad-} 53, But iri the charge^{Sheether name, age} .and^{address are. wrongly} mtntioneO as Asiya fuo.^{Mohd. Mahmood,ig.9?1 ye-ars,Occ.Housewife} and her addres6 also^{wronglygiven19-2423/1,ChandulalBaradari,} Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

¶8

2 Smt. Zubaida Begum,^{Wo. Sadath Saleha'Aged-22ye-a-rs,} Qc9:^Housewife, Flat No.15, Sy.N6.31,^{GS Dargah, Bahadurpula500 064' but in the Charge} Wioiimait, Sneet, Hei Aged name,^'2d age^{years, and} iddress^{Occ Housewife, are wronglY mentioned No.19-2J.2311, as ChandulalZubeda} Baradari, Bahadurpura,^HYderabad.

¶9

... Petitioners/ Accused^{No.2 & 3}

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, High^{Court, Rep. by PPO, High Court.} ...,Respondent No.1 /Compllainant.

¶12

Miss.Zuleka Begum,^{D/o. AhmedKhan, Aged 28 years,.Qcg:P.vt' Employee,} - R/o-H.No 19 2i23t1, Chandulal Baradari, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

¶13

Respondent No.Z De-facto^Gomplainant

¶14

Petition under section^{482 of Cr.P.C, prayingthatin the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in^{supportof the criminalPetition, the High court may be} pleased to quash the proceedings^{againstthe Petitioner/Accused No.2and 3 in cc} No. 72212011 of PS^{Kalapather,on the file of the court of the chiefMetropolitan} Magistrate, Hyderabad,^{for the offence under sec.417 and 42O of IPC of Police} Station, Kalapather^{in the interest of Justice.}

¶15

NO: 1 OF 2014 IGRL.MISC.PETI^{TtoN NO.6052 0F 2014}

¶16

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.cprayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto Stay}

¶17

'/ all lheproceedings irrcluding the^{presence of the Petitioners in CC No 72212011 on} the file^{of the Courto'theChief MetropolitanMagistrate'Hyderabad'}

¶18

The Petition^{:oming on for hearing,uponperusingthe Petitionand the} affidavit^{filed in support thereofand uponhearingthe arguments of Sri K Sai Babu} AdvocateforthePettioner(s),sriVizarathAli,Assst.PublicProsecutorAdvocatefor the Respondent^{No ' and none appeared for the RespondentNo'2'}

¶19

The Court^{madether following: ORDER}

\ \

\ \

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL}

¶24

CRIMINAL PEIITION^{No.5555 0F 2014}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present Criminal^{Petition is filed underSection} 482 of Cr.P.C, seeking^{to quash the proceedings against} the petitioners/A2^{and A3 inC'C'No'722 of 2Ollof} Kalapather Police^{Station, Hyderabad, on the file of Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Nampally,Hyderabadfor the} offence under^{Sections417, 42O of IndianPenal Code'}

¶27

On the last date^{of hearing, when the matter was} taken up for hearing,^{there was no representatiorron behalf} of petitioners,^{therefore, the matter was directedto be} posted today under^{the caption 'for dismissal" In spite of} matter being listed^{today under the caption 'for dismissal"} there is no representation^{on behalf of the petitioners'This} shows that the^{petitionersa-re not evincing any interest in} prosecuting the case'^{Therefore, this petition is liable to be} dismissed for^{non-Prosecution.}

¶28

¶29

Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶30

appearinli for the respondent State takes no objection to the same

¶31

Acc,rrdingly, this criminal petition is dismissed for non-prosocution. However, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue tle remedies according to law.

¶32

Misr:ellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶33

closed.

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

Sd/- G. Sireesha ASSISTANT-REGISTRAR t,/ SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

The Chief l,letropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶38

The Station House Officer, Kamatipura, Hyderabad.

¶39

One CC to Sri. K Sai Babu Advocate [OPUC].

¶40

Two CCs tc Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶41

Two CD Copies.

YJ R

\v-

HIGH COUIRT

EW, J

DATED:1 611212023

ORDER

CRLP.No.6555 of 2014

:.r<br>13 tEB ffi?+ l1
; i)
.i- ,/
')/./
-k 'il
OE itI
SPATC<br>

¶50

DISMISSING OF THE CRL.P FOR NON PROSECTUION

¶51

\e
1/
't

¶52

[o
-6;"<br>as^

Smt. Ayesha Kola, Hyd and Anr. v. State of Telangana, High Court and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ayesha Kola, Hyd and Anr. v. State of Telangana, High Court and Anr.

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

M/S. Ap., Media and Broad Casting Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anothers Vs M/S. Vesture Softech Pvt. Ltd., and Anothers

R.S.Ramachandra Murty, Hyd., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Alluri Prasanna Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

N.Laxmaiah, Hyd and 5 Otrs., Vs Smt. N.Ratnamma, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Vivek Vatsal Marella Vs the State of Telangana

Dr.Kondru Venugopal Rao, R.R.Dt., Vs Sub-Div Magistrate/Rdo, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.,.