Mohammed Mujahid Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mohammed Mujahid Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Personal appearance of the petitioner-accused before the learned trial court dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to his being represented by counsel on every date of hearing; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed (¶31).

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C. No.2627 of 2024 before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad could be quashed; during arguments the prayer was restricted to whether the personal presence of the petitioner-accused before the trial court could be dispensed with.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner-accused before the learned trial court unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial.

Key takeaways

The dispensation is subject to the condition that the petitioner-accused is represented by his counsel on every date of hearing (condition continued in ¶30: "by his counsel on every date ofhearing.").ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Juwadi Sridevi, J.) — Criminal Petition No. 1969 of 2025, decided 12-02-2025, filed under "Section.S2g of BNSS" (read as Section 528 BNSS; OCR-damaged) seeking quashal of proceedings in C.C. No.2627 of 2024 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused (Mohammed Muiahid) restricted the prayer to dispensing with the petitioner's personal presence before the trial court. The Court disposed of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner-accused before the trial court unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition that he is represented by his counsel on every date of hearing; pending miscellaneous applications were closed as a sequel. Respondents/complainants included the State-respondent No. 1 (through learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Jitherder Rao Veeramalla) and Smt Raees Fatima; petitioner was represented by Sri M.A. Qavi Abbasi.

H,GH couRT FoR THE srATE oF TELANGANA AT H'DERABA o[3zst

1

WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY rwo THoUSAND AND rwrrviv rrvt..

PRESENT

Betw6en:

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUS TICE JUWADI SRIDEV CRIM INAL PETITION NO: 1969 oF 2025

Mohammed Muiahid. - - S/o R io-'^" ni s, s i n ",,, " - "i, Y ffi :: T.,,,l,irr*':ff#, I o ilijl] r,",ij f,:H:ffi:i:rl;5:?:::^{e'"'unirv-i""il'";';i",il;t-q-tstrutoz} wc, ...PETtTtoNER/ACCUSED (SOLE)

AND

' Ji::"TT"TInujX:n"n'^{Repbv its Pubticprosecutor,High} court ror the 2. Smt Raees Fatima. W/o^Md Nazibullah Sharif, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Rto 1 2' 1 1 -62eri L ri*,v,,"i.iig;l w,,irig,da, s'ecunderabad,

iiXir}llS

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

Petition under Section.S2g of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in rhe Memorandum. of Grounds- "iCii,Iirii,i"lilron, t!9 High Court may be pleased to quash rhe r;hs1gs ;;";i ;;r;;.i'trie.petitionerleccused herein in S!;),i"?ii.lt l:,::;"".:n'^{rii" ot it'"' l;oilin,="iMetropor*an} raagistraie, at

I.A. NO:2OF 2025

Petition under Sectlon .S2g of BNSS. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrrm of Grounds "i -Criilrrri petition,the High Court may be pteased to stay ail further.procee;;;;;;j;;;s the commencemenr of trair agarnst the petitioner/a".used'hereinl; uc N;;;) r of 2024 on the fire of the X Addt chief Metroporiran rrrragistiaiu, at ;;r"i.irl"o, Telangana,

This^petition comir c ro u no s or i; ; ;, ;,, ""iHl" llJ Xill "fl;l,?;t ff :,: i;,ffi I T "l?I.,#S,rf ABDUL Veeramalla, Addt. eAVt ABBAST public prosecutor Advocare III'irr" p",irin",. ,nd Sri Jithender Rao ""^o"i.rri "iii"^{Respondent No.1}

The Court made the following ORDER:

t/

I I

I I

THE HONO^{U R-A.BLE SMT. .ITISTICE JU\ryADISRIDEYI}

CFJMINAL PE^{'IITION No.1969of 2025}

ORDER:

This Oriminal Petition^{is filed by the petitioner-accused} seeking to^quash the^{proceedings against him ft C C.No.2627 of} 2024 on the file of^lean.red X^{AdditionalChief Metropolitan} Magistrate at S aounderabad.

Heard Sri M.A.Qavi Abbasi,^{learned counsel for petitioner} and Sri Jitherder Rao Veeramalla,^{learned AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor for^r.he State-respondent^No.1.

Though this Criminat Petition is filed^{for quashing the} proceedings, during the course of arguments,^{learnedcounselfor the} petitioner has :'estricted his prayer to the extent of^{dispensing with} the presence of the^{petitioner-accusedbeforethe learned trlal Court.}

Consiclering the submission of the learned^{counselfor the} petitioner, this Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing^{with the} appearance of the petitioner-accused before the learned^t.rial Court unless his pres()nce is spccifically required during the course of trial,

I

2

subject to the condition of the petitioner-accused being represented

by his counsel on every date ofhearing.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

&11-^{vrJAyA LAxMr} ASSISIINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,1 The X Addl. Chief [Vletropolitan lrrlagistrate, Secunderabad

The Station House Officer, Warasiguda p.S., Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. TVOHD ABDUL eAVt ABBAST Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to PUBLTC PROSECUTOR, High Court at UydeiaUaO lbUT; 5. Two CD Copies

^"-if.-

I I

HIGH COURT

DATE D^{: 1 210212025}

ih.iqi

ORDER

CRLP.No.1969^{of 2025}

,4.';
.i'.,< ' El-- S14 T€
)' $
,iJ
I t.)
r.-vz
?1 fiAn W$
c)
A
. .r- * .t
---..:-. -i:.' .:() rct \E\J
S--

DISPOSING^{OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION}

@
o6
d!
s.