The High Court at Hyderabad, while hearing a criminal revision case under Section 397 and 401 CrPC filed under Section 492 CrPC, found that the revision petitioner failed to appear despite multiple listings under the caption 'for dismissal'.
Criminal Revision Case No. 756 of 2023 dismissed for non-prosecution; Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32ee ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E,V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMIN AL REVISION CASE No: 756 of 2023
criminar Revision case fired under section 3g7 & 401 of cr.p.c. against the order dated 05-10-2023 passed in M.C.No.855 0f 2022 (Ord M.c.No.237 0f 20'18) on the fire of the court of the Judge, il Additionar Famiry court-cum-XV Additional Metroporitan Sessions Judge, Karpataru comprex, city civir court, Hyderabad.
Between
Aziz Pasha, S/o Abdul Razzak, Age. .30 years, Occ: (Contractor) (Screenino and Painting) R/o euarter N 4B5i2, crriialguja,SltJrijeLiao r s
...Revision Petitioner
AND
xespondents 3 and 4 being minor Rep. by their mother and natural ouardian Respondent No 2 above rla-imatr aeslm Ari'llt rirt ii'r,rd'\i'-?'_\€diilli'.",', Dabeerpura, Hyderabad.
...Respondents/petitioners
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under section 492 0f cr.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired. in support of the p"iition, the High corit ,rv-u" glgqr"d to suspend the order dated 05-i0-2025 paiseo in M.c.No.855 of 2022 fld. Y:9-No 237 o,t 2O1B)on the fite of JuOge,lt-AJditionat Famity Cor; -C;;xv.Additionar Metroporitan sessions .tuoge,"K;tpaiaiu comprex, city ci"ii c*.t, Hyderabad.
,]
-7
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Md Khurram Rabbani (Not present)
counsel for the Respondent No.1: sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor
Counsel forthe Respondent R2 to 4 : Sri Syed Ahmed Ali
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
I
cRIMINAL REVTSION CASE NO.756 OF 2o23
ORDER:
There was noappearanceon behalf of the petitioner on 23.01.2024,14.1O.2O24 and 28.1'O.2024. Therefore,this Court directed theRegistryto list this matter on 04.11.2024under the caption,'for dismissal". On 04.11.2024, learned counselfor the petitioner sought time.Today i.e., on 25.11.2024there is no representationon behalf of the petitioner despite listingthe matter underthe caption, "for dismissal". This shows that the petitioner isnot evincing any interestto prosecutethe case.
n on-prosecution '
MiscellaneousPetitions, pendingif any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER
To,
kamtsnCA(
I
\
HIGH COURT
DATED:2511112024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.756 of 2023
1 HE S 14 /(.
t
6
3 21 ilAB 2025
.!
Da^J ,ATC nF-o
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED FOR NON.PROSECUTION
UIR /
r>lzlt't
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision petition perish for non-prosecution after repeated failure of the petitioner to appear.
Whether the court can dismiss a revision on the ground of non-prosecution based on listing under 'for dismissal' caption.
What is the effect of the court directing the registry to close pending petitions if any in such an order.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Aziz Pasha
The State of Telangana
Naimath Begum
Master Nawaz Pasha
Baby Rahila Begum
E. V. Venugopala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
