Dismissed¶41

Thakur Sujatha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Dec 2025CRLP/16416/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; Justice J. Sreenivas Rao; CRLP/Criminal Petition No.16416 of 2025; decided 10.12.2025; Thakur Sujatha v. State of Telangana & Mohammed Yaqub (de facto complainant); petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash Crime No.647 of 2025 of Adilabad II Town Police Station; IPC Sections 420, 464, 468, 471, 467 read with 34; petitioner not arrayed as accused; no cause/locus to seek quash; dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved; no precedent discussed; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies available under law whenever cause arises; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶41

Thakur Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECETVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'16416 OF 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

Thakur Sujatha, Wo. Srinivas, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o H No.8-4-3671305, Vinayakrao Nagar, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, The High Court of Telangana Judicature at Hyderabad, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor.

¶12

...RESPONDENT NO 1

¶13

Mohammed Yaqub, S/o. Abdul Razak, Aged about 52 Years, Occ . Teacher R/o. H No.5-1-1 22, Vidyanagar Village, Adilabad lvlanddl and District.

¶14

-RESPONDENT NO. 2 /DE.FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH Proceedings in Crime No.647 of 2025 for the offences under Section 420, 464, 468 471,467, rlw.34 l.P.C. on the file of Adilabad Il Town Police Station of Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Kamareddy and to grant such other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

LA. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further Proceedings in Crime No.647 of 2025 for the offences under Section 420, 464, 468, 471, 467, rlw. 34 l.P.C. on the file of Adilabad ll Town Police Statione of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kamareddy pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Nlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

) \

¶21

I l

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURAI}LE SRI JUS'TTCE J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶24

CRIN{IN,\L l'[],'tl'tlON No.l64l6 of 2025

Date:10.12.2025

Between:

Thakur Sujatha

...Petitioner

AND

The High Court of Telangana, Judicature at Hyderabad, Represented by its Public Prosecutor.

¶31

...respondents

¶32

ORDEIT

¶33

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crin.re No.647 ol 2025, on the file of Adilabad II Town Police Station, Adilabad, r.vherein the petitioner was arrayed as sole accused, for the oflences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 468,47 | read with 34 ol lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC'). 2. Heard Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jitendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public

¶34

Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I /State.

¶35

¶36

During the course of hearing, the learned Additional Public

¶37

Prosecutor had rightly pointed out that the petitioner is not arrayed as accused in the present crime. In the abscnce of'cause, the petitioner is not cntitled to seek quashing of the proccedings

¶38

4 Learned counsel for petitioner seeks pennission of this Court to withdraw the crirninal petition, with a liberty to avail the remedies as available under law, rvhenever cause arises

¶39