Dismissed

Smt.S.K.Afroz Begum, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jan 2024WP/10560/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of applications to recall evidence and produce MLC reports as crucial to her case. The Court held that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy via revision and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner relegated to avail remedy of filing revision; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Smt.S.K.Afroz Begum, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEC.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{oN NO: 10560 OF 2018}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. S.K.Afroz^B eoum. VVo Mohammad^{Zameer, Aged about 29 years,Occ.} Professor, R/o pt"ot t to. 1 03/P, Shanti Nagar, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶9

...PETITlONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary,Home Department,} Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶12

The Station House Officer,^{Narsingi Police Station, Narsingi, Ranga Reddy} District.

¶13

Raees Unnisa, D/o^{Syed Hussain' Aged about27} .yea$,^{Occ' Software} Employee, Rlio AvanthiNagar,^{Mothi Nagar, Hyderabad.}

¶14

Sved Hussain. S/o Sved^{Nabi, Aged about 55 years,Occ. Business, Fl/o H'No'} 13-1 -57 t2O^{t 5 t} l,Avanthi^{Nagar, Mothi Nagar, Hyderabad'}

¶15

Sved Zakir. S/o Sved^{Jaffar, Aged about 45 years,Occ'Business, Fl/o H'No'} 1 3-1^-57 t2oi^{5 I} l .Avdnthi^{Nagar, Mothi Nagar, Hyderabad'}

¶16

Sved Sarfraz Hussain. S/o Sved^{Hussain' Aged about 25 years, Occ' Private} Eilptoyee, R/o^{H.No.1 3-1 - 57 i20 I 5h,AvanthiNagar, Mothi Nagar' Hyderabao'}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under^{Article226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriated^{writ, order or Direction, more particularly one} in the nature of^{writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the 2nd Respondentin} not filing the original^{MLC Report of the Petitioner dt.23-O7-2015, received from} the Olive Hospital by^{the AssistantSub lnspector of Police (ASl ) of 2nd} respondent duly signing^{in the hospital register,call record details in cD Format} andMessagesexchangedinbetweenthePetitionerandtheRespondents3to6,

¶19

¶20

as prosecution evidence arong with the charge Sheet in cc.No.1070 0f 2015 0n the file of the Court of th( Reddy District and thus ;.:::[il!lffil1ri:,.""' Rajendrariasar, Ranga -e as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and viorative of principres of Naturar justice, and respondent to take necessr- "r";" ;:,'^:^,i^'-_ll'".."onttguentlv^direct the 2nd o2_2o1'passed,""rrlL","l#::Hri::,:nTffi ,..:..i.r,ii,ri: CC.No.1070 of 2015, on the fite of the XXill Metn Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar before appropriate "lll1,,r,

¶21

IA NO :1 OF 2018

¶22

petition under Sect in the affidavr ried in sup;J-';',fil;::::^1il ffiH::::::::l"J granr stay of all further proceedings in cc.No.1070 0f 2015,on the fire of the XXlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar' pending disposal of the main wit petition.

¶23

IANo:2OF2018

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CpC prayin g that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 11_O4_201g passed in lA.No.l ot 2O1B in WP.No.10560 of 2018.

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

Between:

¶27

1 J::.1|*,HlE',i33l[?a5.3ts,bv its Principar Secrerary, Home Department,

¶28

2 I[:n!,,.rr",^{House Officer, Narsingi potice} Station, Narsingi, Ranga Reddy

¶29

AND

¶30

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2

¶31

iph*[i'ffi^{'E?,iiriuy,.,U3E,g,,ij"f,} ft :;:,.l,fi $s,is.:,,??J,",ffi;fl?i:

¶32

2 fff,Tr"'JHsh?j;*:[,",.r#:il:1ii,,G8:1fi ff ]:#:#:::'J::'Ij#,':

¶33

Sved Hussain, S/o Sved^{Nabi, Aged about 55 years,Occ Business' Rlio H'No'}

¶34

i-l-sltzotsli,Avanthi Nagar' Mothi Nagar, Hyderabad'

¶35

4- Sved Zakir. S/o Sved Jaffar,^{Aged about 45 years'Occ.Busineds,FyoH No'} 13-1^-57 t2O lst l,Avinthi^{Nagar, Mothi Nagar, Hyderabad'}

¶36

Sved Sarfraz Hussain. S/o Sved^{Hussain, Aged about 25 years,Occ' Private} Einployee, F/o^{H.No.13-1-57i2ol5l1.Avanthi Nagar, Mothi Nagar, Hyderabad'}

¶37

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS^{3, 4, 5 & 6}

¶38

(R-2 to 5 are not necessary^{parties to this petition)}

¶39

Petition under Section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} vacate the interim order^{passed in lA No.1/2018in wP No. 10560/2018dated} 11.O4.2018.

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIPRAKASH CHAKRAVARTHY}

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 & 2: AGPFoR HOME}

¶42

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.3to 6: SRI P.HEMACHANDRA}

¶43

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶44

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1OS 6O of2O18

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This writ petition is frled seeking the following relief:_

¶47

'. .. to to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not filing the original MLC Reporr of the Petitioner, dated 23.O2.2O15 received lrom the Olive Hospital by the Assistant Sub Inspector of police (AS 1) of respondent No.2 duly signing in the hospital register, call record details in CD Format and Messages exchanged in between the petitioner and Respondent Nos.3 to 6 as prosecution evidence along with tJ"e Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 1OTO of 20tS on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District and thus weaken the Petitioner,s case as^.illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of Natural Justice. . . "

¶48

The case of the petitioner is that she is the de facto complainant in Crime No.3S9 of 201S, dated.24.07.2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 5O6 and 509 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation a charge sheet was laid and.the satne was taken cognizance J

¶49

¶50

CVB& J Wp_10560_201E

¶51

as C.C.No.1O7O of 2Ol5 on the frle^{of the XXIII Metropolitan} magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.^{It is the} further case of the petitioner that she^{has producedthe} records relating to the M.L.C. Report and other^records which are very much necessary and crucial to establish^the guilt of the accused. It is the further case of^{the petitioner} that when the said evidence was not being^{produced on} record, the petitioner was constrained to file Crl.M.P.No.1756 of 2Ol7 under Section 3ll of Cr.P.C.^to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W. 1 and Crl.M.P.No.2263 of 2017 under Section 242 of Cr.P.C.^to receive the documents on behalf of the^{prosecution, which} were dismissed by the trial Court without adverting to the facts mentioned in the said applications.

¶52

Sri Prakash Chakravarthy, learned counsel fbr the petitioner has vehemently contended that the trial Court has not properly considered the said applications even though the material placed in support of the applications revealed that the said documents are very much^necessary

¶53

¶54

CVI}R. J lVp 10560 2016

¶55

/ /

¶56

to prove the guilt of the accused and the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the applications.

¶57

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2 has submitted that against the dismissal orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos. 1756 and 2263 of 2017, dated 07.02.2018, the petitioner is having an effibacious remedy of filing of revision under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and instead of filing revision the petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the dismissal orders, as such the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of an alternate remedy.

¶58

In view of the above submissions and since the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of filing revision, this Court, without expressing any opinion with regard to the maintainability of the applications i.e., Crl.M.p.Nos. 1756 and 2263 of 2O17, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of frling revision before the appropriate authority.

¶59

¶60

¶61

CVBR,^J Wp 10560 -20lE

¶62

With the above^{observations, the Writ Petitionis}

¶63

disposed of.^{Thereshall be no orderas to costs}

¶64

7 As a sequel, the^{miscellaneous petitionspending,if}

¶65

any, shall stand^closed.

¶66

SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSlSTANT IST R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Home Department'^{Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad'} State of^Telangana.

¶71

The station^{House officer, Narsingi Police station,Narsingi, Ranga Reddy} District.

¶72

One CC^{to SRI PRAKASH CHAKRAVARTHY' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶73

One CC^{to SRI P.HEMACHANDRA' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶74

Two CCs^{to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶75

Two CD^CoPies BSR \ GJP ,P-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210112024

ORDER

WP.No.10560 of 2018

': -!-::"\ ti'1
q(
/; /+
v
!' r'r
o 1E t fti ' lt
r,)

DFS FAl'I;

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶82

Smt.S.K.Afroz Begum, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.S.K.Afroz Begum, 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

Smt. S.K.G. Parvathi Vs The State of Telangana

J. Kalyan Kumar Vs Smt. J. Gayathri

Mekala Shashanka Vs The State of Telangana

Banothu Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Tics) Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vorem Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana