Dismissed

Mohd. Akbar Ahmed v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC24 Feb 2023CRLP/9761/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, in a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., declined to quash proceedings in a domestic dispute case. The Court held that defences could not be tried at this stage and that accused persons had to face trial, though attendance of some accused was dispensed with subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Relief of quashing the proceedings is denied; attendance of petitioners 2 to 5 is dispensed with subject to conditions.

Mohd. Akbar Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana and another — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9761 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . IMohd. Akbar Ahmed, S/o. Mohd. Anwar Ahmed, Aged about 36 years, Occ.Business, Fi/o. H. No. 20-4-631 I lO,Shahgunj, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶10

tt/ohd. Anwar Ahmed, S/o. Late Mohd. Ahmed, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 20-4-63111O, Shahgunj, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶11

Shahnaz Sultana, Wo. Mohd. Anwar Ahmed, Aged about 60 years, Occ . Housewife, Rlio. H. No. 20-4-631 I 1 0, Shahguni, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶12

Shaheen Sultana, Wo. Mohammed Saquibuddin, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio. 17-6-548, Bagh-e-laskher.jung, Dabeerpura, Behind Dabeerpura Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶13

Anees Sultana, W/o. Mohammed Taqiuddin, Aged about 34 years, Occ . Housewife, No. 20-5-24111, Qazipura, Shah Ali Banda, Opp. Arif function hall, Hyderabad - 500065

¶14

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 5

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., P.S. Falaknuma, Hyderabad District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶17

Smt. Bushra Begum, W/o. Mohd. Akbar Ahmed, Aged about 26 years, Occ.Housewife, Rio. H. No. 19-3-1090/A, Basera Hitech Colony, Falaknuma, Hyderabad

¶18

...RESPONDE NT/COM PLAINANT

¶19

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 against the Petitioners / Accused No. 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 7911 ot 2020 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶20

l.A. NO: 2OF 2O2

¶21

Petition un e Slection 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that rr the circumstances stated in the^I,4 en crandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petitiorr the High Courtmay} be pleased to sta all lurther^proceedings against the^A1 tl ,\5^{n C.C. No. 7911} of 2020 on the fil r of the Hon'ble Xlll Additional Chief^{lt4r::ropc,litan lvlagistrate,} Hyderabad, r-rnder se'ction 498 A, 448, 323, 506 of lPC.

¶22

This Petitio r^,roming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Crim^{-ral retition} and upon hearing the^{arg urnents of Sri R. A.} Achuthanand, Ad or:ale for the Petitioner and the^{Publit; Prosecutor (TG) on} behalf of the Re: rcndent No.1 and of Sri Syed Ahmed r\ i, l\dvocate^{for the} Respondent No.2.

¶23

The Court made t e following: ORDER

¶24

I I

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9761 OF2022

¶27

QEDEB:

¶28

This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 4g2 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure, I973 (for short^,Cr.p.C.,) by the petitioners/Accused 1 to 5 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.791 I of 2O2O for the offences under Section s 49g_A, 448, 323 and 506 of IPC on the frre of XIII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additionai Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent _ State. Perused the record.

¶30

A perusal of the record would reveal that, there are disputes between the petitioners and the 2"d respondent. The 2nd respondent is the wife of 1"r petitioner/.A 1. In the charge sheet, pima facie, there are certain a_[egations leveled against the petitioners herein. They are triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. The defences taken by the petitioners carnot be considered in an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.79ll of 2O2O on the frle of XIII

¶31

Additional Ch:l lvtetro 1-,olitan Nlagistrate at \ampzLlh.. Ilvderabacl - against the l)e it o ers I crein.

¶32

In vieu, o^- the aloresaid reasons, the atrr:nde nce of the petitioners/Ac :r-rsed Nos. 2 to 5 is dispensed u.ith jn O.C.No.79 1l of 2O2O on th, file of XIII Additional Chief Metrop,rlital Magistrate at Nampally,^{-{r'dr:rabad,} when represented bv tlrr:ir counsel on record, is disp rnsed sul)ject to l-rling an affidavit bl thc petitioners 2 to 5 stating that in their absence the proceeclin:1, cc,rrdr-rcted bl their counsel vilI not bc disputcd by them in arry rrLirnrLer and also they sha1l not lispute their identity. However, the l.retitioners 2 to 5 shall appea belore the learned Magistrate as it-rd when their presence is r< lttired. ln the event of the petiti,rr:,ers;' failure to appear u.hen t te Cotrrt directs, this order c ispensing their attendance w ,uld stand cancelled. The petiti,: n against 1sr petitioner/A1 i ; rlismissed.

¶33

Accordin ly, the Criminal Petition is Cis cosed off.

¶34

Miscellaneous rpplications pending, if any, shall strr-rrd closed

¶35

//TRUE COPY'

¶36

Sd,,.MOHD.ISMAIL ASS STANT REGISTRAR

¶37

secir5ru oFFtcER

¶38

To '1 . The Xlll Addi onal Chief l/etropolitan Magistrate at Namp,:;rlly, Hyderabad. 2. The Station l- )use Officer. P.S. Falaknuma police Statio.. l-iv,ierabad. 3. One CC to Sr R A. Achuthanand. Advocate [OpUC] 4. One CC to Sr S/ed Ahmed Ati, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to tl -".rublic^Prosecutor, High Cirurt foithe St:te of felangana at Hyderabad. [( url 6. Two CD Copi S gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 24102t2023

,
-t

Y]
s'+)
: (
(a.l
) ,:' '-.,
l:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

CRL.P.No.976l of 2022

¶45

DISPOSING O = THE CRIMTNAL PETITIOiI

¶46

.\ r5

Mohd. Akbar Ahmed v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Akbar Ahmed 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

M. Sree Ramulu, I.P.S Vs State of Telangana

Hari Sreedhar Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Mamidi Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana

Bandi Srikanth Yadav Vs Makken Rajendar Singh

K.Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Sangem Umarani Vs the State of Telangana