Disposed

Mrs.Asma @ Musharaf Siddiqua v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Dec 2025CRLP/15802/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashment of proceedings in CC No.5507 of 2025 for offences under Sections 35 BNSSA and 3 Dowry Prohibition Act. Prayer restricted to dispensing with appearance of petitioners. Court dispensed with presence.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in cc. No.5507 of 2025 in the presence of counsel. Trial court entitled to proceed without them; sureties to be furnished.

Mrs.Asma @ Musharaf Siddiqua Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ I

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND^DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE^{J SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

CRIMINA.L PETITION^{NO: 15802OF 2025}

¶7

Between

¶8

Mrs.Asma @ Musharaf^{Siddiqua, (Daughterof AccusedNo.1).-W-/o'Shaik} AoOri WriE D/o.Mohammed'^{Kaldem-Ahmed,Occ:House Wife,.Age:} Siyears,' Ryo.t8-8-117t31B,12t1,^{EdiBazar,Mubazuddla,Saidabad,} Hyderabad.,Telangana.

¶9

Mr.Wajid @ Shaik Abdul^{Wajid, (Son-in-lawof Accuse.O.} ltlo.l)^{S/o. Late Shaik} dur.u|q,A!e: 33^years, Occ:_airiiness,^{R/o.17-1-1781N49,Sai Nagar Colony,} Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad.,Telangana.

¶10

...PETITIONER 1 & 2/ACCUSED^{No.2 & 3}

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of TS',} Hyderabad.

¶13

Mrs.Tarannum Jabeen,^{w/o.MohammedKaleem Ahmed,-o/q.9qyp9.AbidAli,} AgL' +O^years, OC":^{pvt Employee(Teach.er),Ri/o. H. No. 1 8-12-4181H174l3l A,} Oiner Colony, Hafez^{Baba Nagar,Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RES PON DEN^{TSICOM P LAIN ANT}

¶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^{againstthe petitioner No.1 and 2lA2 & A3 in} b.C. tto. SSO7]2O2S^{on the file of the XV AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate,} AT. NAMPALLY,^HYderabad-

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶17

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 grant STAY of all further^{proceed_ingsincluding the appearanceof the} petitioner No.f a 2/Accused No.2^{& 3 in C.C.No.55}7l2o25 on the file of the XV} Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, At. NAMPALLY, Hyderabadtill the} disposal of the^{Main Quash Petition in the interest oJ the justice.}

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms S Manjula ,Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

¶19

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶20

,/'

¶21

IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR TTTE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

.THE I.IONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

C PE'I'I't 2of

Date: 02.12.2025

Between:

Mrs.Asma @ Musharaf^{Sidcliqua and another}

¶27

...pettttotrers

¶28

AND

¶29

The State of^T'elattgana, Rep. by its^{PublicProsecutor,} l-tigh Court^{o1'T.S.,t-lyderabadand another}

¶30

...respondents

¶31

ORDER

¶32

ThisCrirninalPetitiorrlrasbeenfiledseekingtoquashthe proceedirtgs^{in C'C'No'5507 of 2025' on the file of learned XV}

¶33

AdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrateatHyderabad,wherein the^{petitiollers were arrayeclas accused Nos'2 and 3' for the}

¶34

offencespunishabteunderSection35oftheBharaltyaNyaya

¶35

Sanhitha,2[23andSection3oftheDowryProhibitionAct'

Heard Ms.S.Manjula, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jitherldar Rao veerarnalla, Ieamed Additional public Prosecutor for respondent No.l

¶40

T'hough the criminal petitiorl was llled seeking to quash tlie proceedi.gs in C.C.No.5507 ol 2025, the learned r;ounscl lbr the petitioners restricted her prayer requesting this court to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners/accusecr Nos.2 and 3 in c.c-No.5507 of 2025, on rrre file of learned xv Acrcritionar Chie{' Metropolitan Magistr.ate al Hyderabacl.

¶41

4' The rearned Additio^ar pubric prosecut.r ir,as ,ot opposed the subrnission made by the rea,red counser ftrr petitioners.

¶42

5' In view of the above subrnissio,s, and rvitrrout expressing any opinion on the rnerits of the case, the pr.esence of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in c.c.No.5507 0r.20250n the fire of learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad' is dispensed with, subject to the condition that trre peririoners/accused Nos.2 and 3 sha, be represented by their counsel 4lrl every date of llearing, unless fhe. specificaily required during trr" .o,rr"-^ ^:.:""" r/ror. prcsence rs urse oI.the rrial. In the event of

¶43

F.:.,,.

¶44

¶45

non-appearance ol'petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 on any date

¶46

so fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court shall be entitled^to proceed with the rnatter in accordance with law. The

¶47

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall furnish sureties before the

¶48

trial Court, if not f urnishecl.

¶49

Accordingly, the crirninal petition is disposed of.

¶50

Pending rnisce[laneous applications, il' any, shall stand

¶51

closed.

¶52

//TRUE COPYI/

¶53

SD/. L VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G

¶54

SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To,

¶56

The XV Additional Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate,At. NAMPALLY,} Hyderabad

¶57

The Station House Officer,^{WPS South East Zone Police Station, Hyderabad} 3. Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor,High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶58

Ohe CC to Ms S Manjula,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

Two CD Copies

;

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211212025

I hie s
()c Z.
ii 5 [[[ ii2i
*'
rt

¶65

ORDER

¶66

CRLP.No.15802 of 2025

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE GRIMINAL PETITION

¶68

Mrs.Asma @ Musharaf Siddiqua v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Asma @ Musharaf Siddiqua 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Habeeb, Vs The State of Telangana

Vaddireddi Rayapa Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. M.Vijaya Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Imroz Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Afsar Vs State of Telangana

Jatavath Santhosh, Vs The State of Telangana.