Allowed

Syed Shareef v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Sept 2024CRLP/1324/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings initiated against the petitioner for offences including disposal of property contrary to the Senior Citizen Act. The Court quashed the proceedings due to the death of the respondent, finding no reason to proceed further.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 618 of 2023 were quashed.

Syed Shareef Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEI\iIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1324 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Syed Shareef, Sio. Syed Yakhoob, Aged. 35 Years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.1-7-440, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana 500020.

¶8

...PETtTTONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Musheerabad, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶11

Syed Yakhoob, S/o. Late Syed Alam, Age. B0 yrs, Occ. Retired employee, Ri o. H.No. 1-7-440, Zaminstanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500020.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

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 proceedings against Petitioner herein in C.C. No. 618 of 2O23 on the file of XVll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the alleged offence under sections 341 , 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 25 of maintenance, welfare of parents and senior Citizen Act 2007 of lndian Penal Code.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶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 stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in C.C. No. 618 of 2023 on the file of the XVll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶16

This Petition coming^{on for hearing} ,upon^{perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing theargumentsof} sri Aashir tvl. Khan ,Advocate^{for the Petitionerand sri D.Arun Kumar, Public} prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri M.A. Khader^Advocatefor the Respondent^No.2.

¶17

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶18

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1324^{of 2o.24}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminai Petition^{is hled under Section482 of Code} of Criminal^{Procedure,1973(lot short 'C.r.P.C.")to quash the} proceedings against the^{petitioner/ accused in C'C'No'618of} 2023 on the file of^{the learned XVII Additional Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Hyderabad,registered forthe} offences^{punishableunderSections 341, 323, 5O6 read with} 34 of the Indian^{PenalCode, 1860 (for short 'I'P'C'')and} Section 25 of^{Maintenance, Wcifareof parents and Senior} Citizen AcL,2OO7^{(for short 'theAct').}

¶22

The brief facts^{of the case are that respondentNo'2lde} facto^{cornplainant lodged a complaint before the Poiice stating} that he had two sons^{i.e., Syed KhurramMahmood and Syed} Shareef. He further^{stated that he had 72 squareyards of} house bearing^{No.1-7-44O,Zamistanpur,Musheerabad,} Hyderabad. Beside^{the said house,he purchased 72 square} yards from his brother and^{gave it to the petitioner i'e', his} younger son. Further, he^{gave his house to his elderson i'e',} Syed Khurram Mahmood^{lt is furtherstated that after giving}

¶23

¶24

SKS,J CrLP-No.1324 of²⁰²⁴

¶25

the property to his^{sons, the petitioner quarreled with} respondent No.2^{about the propertywhich he gave to his elder} son. The petltioner^{used fiithv languageand bet him with} hands and did not^{provideproper food to him, as such,} respondent No.2 is staying^{rvith his elder son' It is ftrrther} stated that the^{petitionerwith the help of SyedSohail Mehdi} and Saddam stopped^{water supply to the house ol his br'rther'} When respondent No.2 asked^{the petitioner abou: the} electricity bill amount,^{he quarreled with respondent No'2 and} necked out from the^{house stating that he should not enter} into the house again.

¶26

Basing on the said complaint,^{the Policeregistered a} case in Crime No.5O7 of^{2022 for the offences punishable} under Sections 341, 323,^{506 read with 34 of IPC and Section} 25 of the Act and after^{completion of investigation, the'r filed} charge sheet vide C.C.No.618^{of 2023 beforethe learnetl XVII} Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Hyderabad'}

¶27

Heard Sri Aashir M.^{Khan, learned counsel appearing} on behalf of the petitioner as^{well as Sri D. Arun Kumar,} learned Additional Public Prosecutor^{appearing on behalf of}

¶28

¶29

¶30

sr(s,J CrLP.No.1324 oJ 2024

¶31

f (

¶32

¶33

respondent No. 1-State and Sri m. A, Khader, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter submitted that respondent No.2 died and there is no reason to continue the proceedings and even on merits, there is no truth in the allegations made by respondent No.2, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 liled petition, uide I.A.No.3 of 2O24 in th.e present criminal petition to implead the petitioner therein as respondent No.3 in the present case as respondent No.2 died and the same was dismissed as not pressed by the counsel for respondent No.2.

¶36

7 . In the light of the above submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it is to be noted that respondent No.2 died. Further, the allegations leveled against, the petitioner are under Sections 341, 323,506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Act as he harassed respondent No.2, who is no more. Therefore, there is no reason to proceed further with the case

¶37

¶38

sr(s,J CrLP.No.1324 oJ 2024

¶39

and continuation of^{proceedings against the petitionerwould} only result in wastage of time^{of the Court, as such,the} proceedings against the petitioner^{are liabie to be quasht:d.}

¶40

Accordir-rgly, the criminal petition^{is allowed ar d the} proceedings against the petitioner/ accused^{in C.C.No.(i18 of} 2023 on thi: hie of the learned^{XVII Additionai Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad,^{are herebyquashecl.}

¶41

Miscellaneous applications, if any^{pending, sha lalso}

¶42

stand closed.

¶43

Sd/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To, 1. The XVll Addl.^{ChiefMetropolitan Magistrateat Hyderabad} 2rheStationHouseofficer'MudheerabadPolicestation,Hy,Jerabad

¶47

One CC to^{Sri Aashir M. Khan,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶48

One CC to Sri^{tr/l.A.Khader,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶49

5.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheState()fTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

Two CD CoPies

a
t

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310912024

,. 'i',1' ,, -=-:: "t ''' t'\ ,:' '<br>fr4 !,1 t /tt)!
'11,
I :, tt\+-t"
ir

¶55

ORDER

¶56

CRLP.No.1324^{of 2024}

¶57

Allowing the^{Criminal Petition}

¶58

Syed Shareef v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Shareef 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Bal Raj Vs the State of Telangana

Banala Naresh Vs State of Telangana

Bandanadam Frances Vs The State of Telangana

Harijan Gopal, Vs The State of Telangana

Orusu Suresh Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana Vs Sayyad Lalu @ Lamiya