Disposed

Mohammed Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Nov 2024CRLP/13410/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal petition under BNSS 528 filed for quashing proceedings and staying further steps in a criminal complaint. The Court dispensed with the accused's presence in trial proceedings except for specific purposes and liberty to file a discharge petition.

What did the court decide?

Appearance/attendance of petitioner before the trial Court dispensed with unless required for specific purpose or recording examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Liberty to file discharge petition gra

Mohammed Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} . AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13410 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohammed Ahmed, S/o.Shaik Hayat aged about 56^years, Occ.Business and Managing Partner M/s.Hayat lnfrastructure, having its regd. office at H.No.122-7531C, Rethi Bowli, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 6,8 TO 1O

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶11

.. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

A.Rajasekhar, S/o.Not know to Petitioner aged . Major, Occ.Tahsildar Office of Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAI NANT

¶14

Telangana State Wakf Board, Razzak Manzil, Nampally, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.

¶15

RESPONDENT/PROPOSED COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.Cl528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to and in connection with C.C.No.223112021 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, and quash the same against the^petitioner herein.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶18

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 appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.223112021 On the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, pending disposal of quash petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^argumentsof Sri MOHD. MOIN AHMED QUADRI, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and Sri. Jithendar} Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of^{the RespondentNo.1.}

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

../

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.13410 of 2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section⁵²⁸ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita^(for short'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the^proceedings against him in C.C.No.2231 of 2021 on^the file^{of the XVI} Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,^Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, registered for the offences^punishable under Sections 447, 427 of Indian Penal Code^{(for short} 'IPC') and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984.

¶25

Heard Sri Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri,^{learned counsel} for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao^{Veeramalla, leamed} Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent^No.1-State. Perused the record.

a./ i*.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner that bald and general allegations are ntade against the petitioner.

¶31

On the other hand, learned Additional public

¶32

Prosecutor vehemently opposed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner as police have investigated the case and filed charge sheet against him. He further contended that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the Court below.

¶33

Having regard to the contentions advanced on either side and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appearance/attendance of the petitioner/accused before the XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, in C.C.No.2231 of 2024 is dispensed with, unless his presence is required by the trial Court for a \qecific purpose, or at the time of recording his examination under Section 313 CI.P.C., and on the date of pronouncement

I I

.r.

of Judgment.^{However,the petitioner/accusedis at libertyto} file discharge^{petition and on such petition being filed' the} trial Court^{shall dispose of the same on merits withinthree} (3) weeks^{from the date of filing of the said petition'} uninfluenced^{by any of the observationsmade in this Order'}

¶38

6 Accordingly,^{this Criminal Petition is disposed of'}

¶39

Miscellaneousapplications^{pending'if any' shall stand}

¶40

closed

¶41

Sd,. L.^VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT^REGI S RAR

¶42

//TRUE^COPY'/

¶43

SECTION FFICER

¶44

"l+6liiti'q+iIi[{#rH'iti::';ix"#i1iiiiilTi'1"" a. f*o^{CCs to The Put}

¶45

. B'rl"it?S^{Sn'il'"*MoinAhmed Qudri' Advocate [oPUC]}

¶46

Two^{CD CoPies}

PM/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/1112024

rb-
'Al(j
1d
( s t-
(
J
a I
() 11 0Et 2f:1
1,,
.i
t!)r

¶52

ORDER

¶53

CRLP.No.13410 of 2024

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶55

s q'

¶56

fi'q*

Mohammed Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ahmed 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

K. Pranil Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Machineni Madhusudhan Vs The State of Telangana

Vinay Awasthi Vs Shruti Vora

P.Yallamma Vs Mrs. a.Shanti Kumari, IAS

O.Yadamma Vs Mrs. a.Shanti Kumari, IAS

Shaik Abdulla Vs The State of Telengana