Disposed

Dr. Syed Afzal, Hyderabad. v. Smt. Rizwana Habeeb, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs.

Telangana HC14 Feb 2023CRLRC/568/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana closed Criminal Revision Case No. 568 of 2010 filed by the de-facto complainant. The proceedings were terminated because the civil disputes between the parties had already been settled via a compromise memorandum executed on 27.04.2012, rendering the revision purpose defeated.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case closed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Dr. Syed Afzal, Hyderabad. Vs Smt. Rizwana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s9 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 568 OF 2010

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated^'12.01.2010 made in C.C.No.65 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the lX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. Syed Afzal, S/o. Late Sri Syed Aziz, aged 80 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner R/o. H.No.3-6-16, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Rizwana Habeeb, Wo. Dr. Habeeb Bubaker, aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife RJo. H.No. 2-2-1811, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

C. Hanuman Das, S/o. C.S. Rao, aged 60 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Servant Rl o. 2-2-181 41 12, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

Prasada Rao, S/o- V. Uma Maheshwar Rao, aged 55^years, Occ: Business Fl/o. H.No. 2-2-1811112, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 to 3

¶16

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd. by the Police of P.S. Chikkadpally, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/PROSECUTION

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD. SHAFIUDDIN (Not Present) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI SANDEEP, REPRESENTING FOR SRI R. DILIP KUMAR JAISWAL

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GUDAPATMNKATESWARA RAO (Not Present) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI MUTHYALA MURLIDHAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

(

¶22

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.568 of 2O1O

¶23

ABPER:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revrsron petitioner - de-facto complainant to set aside the judgment dated 12.O1.2010 in C.C.No.65 of 2O01 on the file of learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - accused Nos.l to 3 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

¶25

There is no representation on behalf of the revlsron petitioner - de-facto compiainant.

¶26

Sri Sandeep, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 - accused No.l is present. However, there is no representation on behalf of other respondents-accused.

¶27

Learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 accused No. t has submitted that the disputes between the parties in all the forums was settled long ago and to that extent he has filed copy of the order dated 27.04.2012 in A.S.No.256 of 2OO9 on the file of learned III Additional Chief

¶28

r-r-

¶29

¶30

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad along lr,ith memorandum of compromise filed under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein both the parties have signed the memorandum of compromise agreeing to with<iraw all the matters including the present criminal revision case i.e., CRLRC No.56B of 2010

¶31

In view of the above facts and circumstances and since the disputes betu,een the parties have already been settled by way of compromise arrlong the parties, the very purpose of filing the present criminal revision case to set aside the judgment dated 12.01.2010 in C.C.No.65 of 2001 on the lile of learned IX Additional Chief Metropoiitan Magistrate at Hyderabad is defeated and thereby the proceedings in this criminal revision case are liable to be closed.

¶32

Accordingly, this criminal revision case is closed. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

¶33

shall stand closed.

¶34

SD/.I.NAGA^LAKSHMT DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The lX^{Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad'}

¶40

The Station^{House Officer, Chikkadpally Police Station' Chikkadpally'} Hyderabad.

¶41

One^{CC to Sri MohdShafiuddin' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶42

..Y-

¶43

¶44

One CC to Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

One CC to Sri R. Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

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

¶47

Two CD Copies gbr

¶48

"<sup>}-

t l't

.. HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410212023

ORDER

1ti E STA 7'A: c/
'r
t, ) 12 UN?[ln
:-)
\.<br>

¶54

CRL.R.C.No.568 of 2010

¶55

CLOSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶56

oxw

¶57

Dr. Syed Afzal, Hyderabad. v. Smt. Rizwana Habeeb, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Syed Afzal, Hyderabad. v. Smt. Rizwana Habeeb, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs.

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

Kumbaro Suresh and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Dr.Jagdish Kumar Telang Vs Smt.Anupama , Divya and 3 Others

Bommera Srinivas Vs State of Telangana

Pulluri Thanmai , Santhoshi Vs Pulluri Sudheer Kumar and 5 Others

Gundagoni Yellamma Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, Secunderabad. Vs Amit Kapoor, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, and Anr.