Allowed

Kishore Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Sept 2024CRLP/10814/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition under Section 528 of the BNS 2023 to quash proceedings in M.C.No.B/26712022, holding that the matter was squarely covered by a prior order in Cr.P. No.1174 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 29.08.2024 in M.C.No.B/26712022 is set aside. Respondent No.3 is at liberty to pass orders afresh after conducting due inquiry.

Kishore Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^33Bs ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10814 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kishore Singh, S/o. Bharathsingh, Aged.48years, occupation. Business, R/o H.No.10-2-274, Aramgheer Colony, Balramgally, Asifnagar, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONEFURESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise station, Dhotilpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District.

¶14

..RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 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 Mc.No.B/26712022 daled 29.8.2024 on the file of Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶17

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 Stay all further proceedings in Mc.No.8/2671202 daled 29.8.2024 on the file of Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District,^pending Quash Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^B MURALIDHAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun kumar Doddla, the Additional Public Prosecutor^(TG) on behalf of the Respondents

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O814 of 202.4

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023 (for short, 'the BNSJ to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in M.C.No.B/ 267 12022 on the file of the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶23

Heard Sri B.Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-State. Perused the record.

¶24

karned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the order dated OS.OZ.2O23 in Criminal Petition No. 1174 of 2023 and enclosed a copy of the said order.

¶25

I I

¶26

¶27

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the issue in the present criminal petition is covered by the earlier order in the above criminal petition.

¶28

In view of the said representation and as the matter is squarely covered by the order in the above criminal petition, this criminal petition is allowed in terms of the above said order,

¶29

¶30

¶31

adopting the reasoning contained therein.^{The impugned order} dated 29.08.2024 in M.C.No.B/267 12022 on the file of^the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, is set aside.^Further, respondent No.3 is at liberty to^pass orders afresh, if^necessary, after conducting due inquiry and by following due^{process of} law.

¶32

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal

¶33

Petition shall also stand closed.

¶34

Sd/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT VREGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

.The Special Executive [Vlagistrate, Hyderabad District.

¶39

lThe Station House Officer ,prohibition & Excise Dftoolpet, Hyderabad. 3.^pne CC to SRt B MURALIDHAR, nOvocate tOpUq 4. Two CCs to Public^prosecutor, High Court foi the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT].

¶40

Two CD Copies

¶41

Note: A order copy dated 0s.07.2023 in crl.p. No.^.l 174 ot 2023 enclosed herewith

eahn vf

HIGH COURT

DATED:18i09/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.10814 of 2024

¶48

st4 ,{:
(
ro ilo\l 2U 2
.L
.-/2.
"\ !{sr,r..,.'
]

¶49

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶50

b^roPP N,

¶51

HON'BLE S['IT. JUSTICE^{G. ANUPANIACHAKRAVARTHY} CRI}IINIAL^{PETITIONNo.l174of 2023}

¶52

ORDER:

¶53

This Criminal Petition is^{filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C'} by the petitioner to^{quash the proceedingsin C.No.l87lBl/2022,} dated 14.12.2022 on the file of^{2nd respondentlExecutive} Magistrate and Tahsildar, Karimnagar^Urban.

¶54

Heard learned counsel for^{the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh,} leamed Assistant Public^{Prosecutorfor respondent No.1} -^State' Perused the record.

¶55

It is the contention of^{the learned counsel for the petitioner} that the impugred order^{has beenpassedby the 2"d respondent} without following due^{processof law and hence, it is liable to be} quashed. He has relied on the order^{dated22.03.2016 in Criminal} Revision Case No.774 of 2016,^{wherein, this Courthas specifically} held that the^{petitioner therein committed breach of bond by} violating the^{provisions of Sections 7(A) riw. 8(e) of A'P'} Prohibition Act,^{1995 andtherefore the impugned order waspassed} directing the^{petitioner thereinto pay a penalry of Rs'1,00,0001}

¶56

and to show cause within seven days as to why he should not be adjudged for imprisonment until such bond period expires without conducting any enquiry; the order does not anywhere indicate opportunity being given to the petitioner to explain his^case before the impugned order came to be passed and that the order under challenge came to be^passed without conducting^{proporinquiryas} required under the provisions of the Act and accordingly set^aside the order impugned therein.

¶57

On the other hand, it is contended by the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor that the show cause notice was issued on 14.12.2022, to which the petitioner has given detailed reply on the same day and that the impugned order was^passed on the same^day. It is contended that in the event of quashing the impugned order for not following due process of law, liberty may be giveu to the^2nd respondenVExecutive Magistrate and Tahsildar to pass orders afresh.

¶58

On perusal of the record, it is evident that the 2"d respondent has not followed the due process of law before passing the impugned order. Furthemrore, in view of the order of this Court in

¶59

¶60

Criminal Revision Case^{No.774of 2015dated 22-03.2016, the} impugned order is liable^{to be set aside,as no prima facie case is} made out against the^petitioner.

¶61

In view of the above, this criminal^{petition is allowedandthe} impugned order dated 14.12.2022^{passedby the 2ndrespondent in} C.No.187/B l/2022 is^{set aside.However,the 2nd respondentis at} liberty to pass orders afresh,^{if necessary, after conductingdue} inquiry and by following^{dueprocess of law.}

¶62

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, ifany,shal1stand}

¶63

closed.

¶64

G.ANUPANIA CHAKRAVARTHY'^J

¶65

Date:05.07.2023 Lk/Rev

Kishore Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ilaveni Narsimgam Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Pavani Dharmashoth Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Ghanshyamdas Karwa Vs The State of Telangana

Goli Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Muzammil Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Madar Saheb Vs The State of Telangana