Disposed

Mr.Shaik Mansoor Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Dec 2025CRLP/16539/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. While directing accused Nos. 2 to 8 to submit explanations after notice issuance, the Court refused to quash proceedings against Accused No. 1 due to the issue of a Local Observatory Challan.

What did the court decide?

Petition partially disposed; accused Nos. 2 to 8 directed to submit explanation; proceedings against accused No. 1 not quashed.

Mr.Shaik Mansoor Ahmed Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16539 OF 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

MT.SHAIK MANSOOR AHMED, S/o. shaik mahmood ahmed Aged about 35 years, Occ.- service at abroad, R/o.H.No.14-8-l22l4,nizampura,Warangal Rep by Mr.Mohammed Anwar Pasha S/o. mohammed^yakoob miya^Aged about 42 years Occ. business R/o.H.No.3-2-108,^{AmberdkarNagar,} Ramagundam mandal, Peddapalli District, Telangana-505208

¶9

tvlrs. Bilquees Begum, Wo. Shaik Mahmood Aged about. 71^{years Occ.} House Wife, R/o 14-8-12214 Nizampura, Warangal, Telangana^- 506002

¶10

Shaik Azhar Mahmood, S/o Shaik Mahmood Aged about. 28^yearsOcc. Student H No. 14-8-12214 nizampura, Warangal Telangana - 506002

¶11

Shaik Ghouse, S/o Shaik Mahmood Aged about. 31^years Occ.Buissness, R/o 14-8-12214, Nizam Pura, Warangal Telangana- 506002

¶12

Shaik Mahmood, S/o Shaik tmam Aged about. 40, Occ.Buissness,^{R/o . H No} 1 4 -8- 1 221 4, nizamp u ra Wa ra n^g a I Te lan^gana- 5060 02

¶13

Shaik Nazima Afreen, D/o. Shaik Ahmed Aged about. 39^years Occ.^House Wife, H NO 14-08-12Zl4Nizampur, Warangal Telangana.

¶14

Naziya Farheen, W/O Mohammed lqbal Pasha Aged about. 38^years Occ.House Wife R/o H.No 5-8-2, Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda Near^public garden, Hanamkonda Warangal Telangana - 506001

¶15

Masarath Jahan, C/O Mahmad Amzathulla Aged about.^{32 years Occ.House} Wife, R/o 14-8-12214,Warangal, Telangana - 506002

¶16

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1 to 8

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Telangana,^Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,^{High Court of} Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶19

...STATE/RESPONDENT

¶20

Shaik moinuddin, S/o^shaikhussain Age. 41^yrs, Occ. Retired^EmployeeR/o H. No. 1 4-8-121, Warangal,^{Nizampura,Warangal,Telangana.}

¶21

...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶22

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 quash^lh9_q1o_ce9dlngs in Crime no.139t2024, on- tne file potic" lnthezargunj U/s 290,323,324,RM 34 including their appearance, till the pending disposal of the main Criminal^petition.

¶23

t.A. NO: 2 0F 2025

¶24

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 olSf further proceedings in Crime no. 13gt2024,6n the file police lnthezargunj U/s 290,323,324,RtW 34 including their appearance, till the pending disposal of the main Criminal^petition.

¶25

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SyED KHAMRUDDIN ,AdVOCAIE for the Petitioner and JITHENDER RAo VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J.SREENTVAS RAO}

¶29

CRIMTN PETITION No.1 of2025

¶30

Date: I 12.2025

¶31

Between:

¶32

Mr.Shaik Mansoor Ahmed^{and seven others} AND The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another

¶33

Petitioners AND Respondents

¶34

ORDER

¶35

This Criminal Petition^{has been filed seekingto quash the}

¶36

proceedings in Crime No.139 of^{2024 on the file of lnthezargunj} Potice Station, wherein^{the petitioners were arrayed as accused} Nos.l to 8 for the offences^{punishableunder Sections 290,323} and324 rlw 34 of the^{Indian Penal code, 1860 (for short 'IPC',).} 2. Heard sri Syed^{Khamruddin, learned counsel for the} petitioners and Sri^Veeramalla Jithendar^{Rao, learned Additional}

¶37

Pubtic Prosecutor^{for respondent No.1}

¶38

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and that they have been falsely irnplicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the nature of the allegations pertains to mon etary disputes and the respondent No.2 ought to have approached the competent civil court. Respondent No.2 has sustained only minor injuries. Even the ingredients of the offences under Sections 290, 323 and, 324 read with Section 34 of the lpc are not attracted against the petitioners. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

¶40

Per contra, learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the Investigating officer had already issued notice under Section 4l-A of the code of criminal procedure, lg73 (for short, 'cr.P.c.') / Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') to accused Nos.2 to 8 on 29.07.2025. In spite of the same, they have not submitted any reply. Insofar as accused No.l is concerned, Loc against him was issued on 06. ll.20zs.He funher submitted that, based on the rqe{ical records of the respondent No.2/defacto

complainant, Section326 of the IPC^has also^{been added. Hence,} the petitioners are not entitled to seek^{quashingof the} proceedings at this stage

¶45

Having considered the rival submissions^made by^the respective parties and upon^perusal of^{the material availableon} record, inctuding the written^{instructions placed by the learned} Additional Public Prosecutor^{dated10.12.2025,it revealsthat the} Investigating Officer had already^{issued notices under Section} 4l-A of the Cr.P.C. /Section 35(3)^{of the BNSS to accusedNos.2} to 8 on 29.07 .2025.

¶46

Taking into consideration of^{the same, petitioner Nos.2 to} 8/accused Nos.2 to 8^{are directed to submitreply/explanation} along with the documents,^{whichare available with them,to the} Investigating O fficer.

¶47

By virtue of^issuance of^{LOC against petitioner} No.l/accused No.l,^{this Court is not inclined to quashthe} proceedings against him^at this^stage.

¶48

8 With the above^{findings, the criminal petition is disposed} "l

of.

I t, - -

I I I I :il i: j I j'i i j ; :

¶55

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shail stand

¶56

closed.

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1
<br>OFFICER

¶59

To,

¶60

¶61

The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate^{At Warangal.} 2. The Station House Officer, lnthezargunj^{Police Station, WarangalDistrict.} 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,^HighCourtfor the^Stateof Telangana [OUT]

¶62

One CC to SRl. SYED KHAMRUDDIN Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Two CD Copies

DDN/NVB

I I I I ! i i I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED t1211212025

S
c
o
1 g SEI ?i'?5
-*
$:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

CRLP.No.16539 of 2025

¶73

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶74

s.pe'<br>S6,r

Mr.Shaik Mansoor Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Shaik Mansoor 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadamanchi Mahendar, Vs The State of Telangana

T. Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Iqbal Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Dubbaka Srinu Sreenaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sana Fatima, Vs The State of Telangana

N. S. Pattabhi Rama Rao Vs The State of Telangana