Disposed

Mr. Mohd Abdul Mukkaram, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Dec 2025CRLP/17103/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash proceedings in a cheating case was restricted by counsel to seeking exemption from the accused's personal appearance. The court dispensed with his presence, subject to representation through counsel on every hearing date, without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Personal appearance of petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.5867 of 2022 dispensed with, subject to appearance through counsel and appearance when directed.

Mr. Mohd Abdul Mukkaram, Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 17103 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

'1 .lVr. Mohd Abdul N/ukkaram, S/o. lMohd Abdul Mannan, aged about. 59 years. Occ. Furniture Business. Rt/o H.No. 5-B-450. Chirag Ali Lane. Abids, Hyderabad-1

¶8

.PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

z D. Raghupathi, S/o. Venkataiah aged about.51 Years, Occ. Labour. R/o. H.No. 1 3-6-91 6 191 41 1 1, Banjawadi Karwan Hyderabad-500006

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

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 the proceedings against petitioner / Accused No.1 in CC.No. 586712022, dated 2210712022, on the fite of Honourabte il Addt Chief Metropolitan Magistrate At. Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to pass interim direction by ordering Stay of all furthei proceedings against petitioner/Accused No. 1 in CC.No. 586112022, dated 2210712022, on the file of Honourable ll Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate At. Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. Ravi Prakash representing Sri SUBRAMANYATM DARABOINA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

ii t,

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF T]I^,ANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIT'AS RAO

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.171O3 of 21t25

¶22

Date:18.L2.2O25

¶23

Betr.t een:

¶24

Mr. Mohd Abdul Mukkaram

¶25

Petitioner

¶26

AND

¶27

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad ald another

¶28

.. F cspondents

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Criminal Petition is hled seeking 1r quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5867 of 2022, on the ile of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate a1 Nnmpally, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as acclrsi( d No. 1, for the offences punishable under Sections 321 , +'27 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶31

Heard Mr.N.Ravi Prakash, learnt,, I counsel representing Mr.Daraboina Subramanyam Ya< av, learned ..; .: , 'r4i. counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jith :ncler Rao

¶32

I h

¶33

¶34

Veeramalla, learned Additional Public^{Prosecutor for} respondent No. 1-State.

¶35

Though the criminai^{petition was filed seekingto} quash the proceedings in C.C.5867^{of 2022, the learned} counsel for the^{petitioner restricted his prayer requesting} this Court to dispense^{with the appcarance ofthe} petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.5867^{of 2022, on the} file of the II Additional^{Chief MetlopolitanMagistrateat} Nampally

¶36

The learned Additiona,l^{Public Prosegutor has not} opposed the submission^{made by the learned counsel for} petitioner.

¶37

In view of the above^{submissions,and without} expressing any opinion on the^{merits of the case,the} presence of the petitioner/accused^{No.1 in C.C.No.S867 of} 2022, on the hle of the II^{AdditionalChiefMetropolitan} Magistrate at Nampally, is^{dispensed with, subjectto the} condition that he shall be represented^{through his counsel} on each and every date of^{hearing. If the presence of the} / I

¶38

¶39

petitioner is required,^{he shall appear befor :the trial} Court. In^{case of his non-appearance on the} ';^{lecitlc date}

¶40

fixed by the^{tr.ial Court for his appearance'th: trial Court} is entitled to^{proceed with the matter,in accr'. dance with}

¶41

1aw.

¶42

6 Accordinglt',^{the criminal petition is disptl;ed of'}

¶43

Pending rrriscellaneous^{applications, i''an1" shall}

stand closed.

,TRUE COPY//

SD/.T.PONNAKRISHNA ASS I,TANT REGISTRAR /"r^(-*

¶48

. SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

The ll Addl Chief l\rletropolitan^{Magistrate At. Nampally, Hyderabad'}

¶51

The SHO Abid Road^{Police Station, HyderabadDistrict.}

¶52

One CC to SRl.^{SUBRAIUANYAM DARABOINAAdvocit-"} [OPUC]

¶53

Two CCs to PUBLIC^{PROSECUTOR,High Court for the itate of Telangana} at Hyderabad [OLIT].

¶54

Two CD Copies

¶55

pk o.

HIGH COURT

JSRJ

DATED:1811212025

CRLP.No.17103 of 2025

¶60

F.,
i .1HE S T4
C
Y
oO
I a( U ilt' I
*
a, I f:,

¶61

CRIMINAL PEITITION IS DISPOSED OF.

¶62

)

Mr. Mohd Abdul Mukkaram, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohd Abdul Mukkaram, 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

Shaik Nayeem, Vs The State of Telangana

Marepally Sai Ram Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Patibandla Rambabu, Vs State of Telangana

Mr.Nomula Ailaiah @Ilaiah Vs The state of Telangana

Bhanuru Nagender Vs State of Telangana

Muthyala Mahesh Goud Vs The State of Telangana