Disposed

M.A. Jahangir Khan, R.R.Dist. v. Sho, Hayathnagar P.S., R.R.Dist. and Ano

Telangana HC2 Sept 2025CRLP/5509/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 340 of 2015 were disposed of by dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners/accused in the trial court, subject to representation through counsel.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners/accused in C.C. No. 340 of 2015 dispensed with, subject to representation through counsel.

M.A. Jahangir Khan, R.R.Dist. Vs Sho, Hayathnagar P.S… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^{3303 ]}

¶2

rN rHE^{HIGH couRr Ffl$rtff^?tiJEoF TELANGANA}

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE SECOND DAY OF SEPT-EIVIBER} '"-"iw'o'*rousAND AND TWENTY^FlvE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRt JUSTICE J' SREENIVAS RAO} MINAL PETITI^{ONNos:5509 of2016and 1892 ol} 2021

¶6

cRl MINAL

¶7

Crimina I^{Petition No.5509of2016}

¶8

Between:M.A. Jahangir^{Khan, S/o RahmatullahKhan' Age:36 vears' Occ: Agriculturist'r/o} H.No.2-27'^{Sahebguda ;ifl'ilNn;;s'ip'lrv 6r.u' Panchavat' lbrahimpatnam} Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District'} ...petitioner/Accused^No.3

¶9

...petitioner/Accused^No.3

¶10

AND

¶11

,, .\ rJ^.,-+hn,nar Police Station,^Ranga

¶12

1. The^{State of Telangana,through S H.o.,Hayathnagar Police} Reddv^{District' *p';; il;;rosecutor'nlgh court'Hvderabad'}

¶13

1. Mohd.^{Zaheds/o d: ;fti. Krt, il;aSout48 years, r/o H.No'e-4-} ' altlilMerai^{Colony'Tolichowki' Hyderabad}

¶14

...Respondents/complainant

¶15

Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr' P} ^C^{. prayino that in the circumstances} b"roOs^{of CriminalFetition' the High Courtmay} stated be oleased^{in the to Memorand'} call for tn"''*"IOt "t^{t"lating-to the,charoe sheqt in C C'No 340of} 2015 on^{the file or tn" rTrr'"rili;;;!ii;; illasistrate, c"yueraoidat Havathnasar'} and^{quash the proceedings thereon}

¶16

l.A. NO: 10F^{2016 cRLPM P. NO:64030F2016)}

¶17

Petition^{under Section 482 o'f Cr'P 'C. p9yinn that in the circumstances} stated in^{the Memorand'#"rt"ro*ot-oiC'inrinlrFetition' the High Courtmay} be oleased^{to grant .try oi'ui'tu"rtiJi'il""uaingr,includinqthe appearance of the} oetitioner^{in c.c.No.340} "i;;i;^{;;'i;;rir" oi tr'" Vll tietropolitan Masistrate'} Lill",.a[;i;iH;vrin""g",^{ffio-inio'tpotal or the criminal Petition'}

¶18

This Petition^{comingon for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum} 'of Grounds^{of criminarpetitio'n "anjirpon n"rling'ft,. aroumentsof sri V. Kiranmayr'} reoresenting^{Smt. Veduta"Ci.,i,rrf"[tl,AdvocJte for tie Petitioners and the Sri M'} Vivekananda^{Reody,Assili""ip'oiil Prosecutor.onbehalfof the Respondent} No.1 and^{of sri Azeez HJ..li;,'rlir"."niingsri J. prabhakar, Advocate for the} Respondent^No.2.

¶19

Crimin al Petition No.1892 of 2021

¶20

Between:

¶21

't. Haleema Mohd Kamil,. Dfo: lale Mohd Kamit, Aged about 61 years, Occ: [ffi:rt::^{f,/o H No.e-q-atiiqq,-'ni".)l'6oro"y,rorichowki,} Gorconda

¶22

2 R/o. Asma Begum, W/o. Late Mohd Abid, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife, .H.^{No.1 8-8-485/66/8, rrr"*,} Ji eij,"or=r, riri'"r, oro

¶23

Syed tzaz, S/o. Hussain. nq9! aogut;/;;;. o;; car Driver. R/o. H.No.e_ 4-61 I 1 44, Meraz Cotony, fo'iicfrowti t tatg,;"., ;rri"lr O"O ...petitioners/Accused A1. A2 & A4

¶24

AND

¶25

1 Ii:"r:fi:^{or relangana'Rep bv its pubtic prosecutor, High} court at

¶26

2 Mohammed Zahed, s/o. Litg y_".!q Kamit, Ased ,0"r, uu ["".r3,.31i"1r,rr," EffJ:Jffi Rr/o H No. s-4-01t141 nr"i"l''c"r"rl,, rorichowki, Gorconda,

¶27

...RespondenUDefacto Complainant

¶28

petition under Section -4g2 of Cr. p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground. "i ciri#i"li petition, the High court ,ay &fJ:,T,T li,X::IJ[:3;,];;"1o6^{;loii"",'ii" ri,e orinu u,v',"ir,i,g;,. , s}

¶29

l.A. NO: 1 oF 2021

¶30

Petition under Section -4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of-Ground. "i cn#i"li petition, the High court may be preased to orant stav oJ arr rrrtnu,^ piolrJi"n., ," c.c. No 340 0f 2015 0n the fite of the HavathnagarF s cvo"rr[rj,'ii".ii"n',i;ro"sar of tho main crr. petition.

¶31

This Petition comino on for hoari^^ ,,^^_ _ Groundsorc.r,ii,rili;ilIL:lot",,riiT*?;.!ii35,"ffi ::,li1s:il.lillffi ;: representing Smt. vedura chitrareliha, aa"o"i" f",- the petitioners and the Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant puotic prol;;;,;;'". behatf of the Respondent H ussa in''."p,."'"ntin!"6,.i'i. p.r or,r rr. ni,""r,Ji"i *," H:.Hf,Tl i;'.1""'

¶32

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶33

HON^,BL E SRI^JUS TICE J.sREENIVAS ALPETITI^ON Nos' 5509o f20L6 and 1892ol 202¹ c

¶34

coM^MO NORDER:

¶35

coM^MO Criminal^{Petitions have been hled under} These^two Section^{482 ofttre Code of CriminalProcedure'1973 (fot} short,'Cr'P'C'')'^{seeking to quash the charge sheet in C'C'} No.34O^{of2Ol5 on the file of the VIIMetropolitan} Magistrate,^{CYberabadatHayathnagar againstthe} petitioners,^{whowere arrayed as accr. sed Nos' lto 4'}

¶36

learned counsel' 2. Heard^Sri V'Kiranmayr' representing^{Srnt'Vedula Chitraiekha' learned counsel for} tkre^{petitioners,SriAzeez Hussain' learnedcor'rnsel'} J.Prabhakar,^{Iearned Senior Counsel} representing^Sri behalf^{ofresPondentNo'P andSri} appearing^on M.Vivekananda ReddY,^{learned AssistantPublic} Prosecutor appearing^{on behalfof respondent No'1-State} in both the crirninal Petitions'

¶37

Learned counsel^{for the petltlonerssubrnittedttrat} the petitioners^{have not committedany offence and they} were falsely^{irnplicatedin thepresent crirne'} Even according^{to the allegationsrnade in the cornplaint and in} the charge^{sheet,theingred'ients ofSections463 '464 '}

¶38

¶39

-r-_

¶40

46a, 42O, 5Cr6 r/w 34 of IpC and Section 156(3) of Cr.p.C. are not attracted against the petitioners and entire a-llegations levelled against the petitioners are pureiy civil in nature. Hence, the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶41

per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioners have to be adjudicated after a full_fledged trial only There are no grounds to seek quashing of the proceedings, especially since in this case the evidence of pWs. I to 4 has already been completed and the learned Magistrate has issued summons to LWs.6 to 10. At this juncture, the petitioners cannot seek quashing of the proceedings.

¶42

The very sarne grounds were reiterated by the learned Assistant public prosecutor.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply subrnitted that petitioners, presence before the triai co.. rt may be dispensed with.

¶44

above said consideration^ttre 7.^Takinginto without made^{bY ttreresPectiveParties '} submissrons

¶45

¶46

expressing^{any view on ttre merits of the case 'ttre} appearance^{of the petitioners/ acctlsed Nos'l to 4 in C'C'} No.34O^{of2Ol5' on ttre file ofthe VIIMetropolitan} Magistrate,^{Cyberabadat Hayatkrnagar'is dispensedwith'} unless^{their presenceis specificallyreqlrired during} the^{co,rse of trial, subject to condition that they shall} be^{representedtkrrough their counselon each and} every^{adjournment'ln case of non-app earaflce of the} petitioners^{on the specifrc dates so fixed by the trial} court^{for their appearance, the trial court is entitled}

¶47

to proceed^{with the matter in accordancewith law'}

¶48

a. with^{the above said direction' both the criminal} petltlons^{are disPosedof'}

¶49

Pending^{miscellaneous applications'if any'shall}

¶50

stand closed.

¶51

d/. V.^{HARI PRASAD} EPUTY^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY'/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

123 The The Two Vll Station CCs MetroPolitan^{to the House Officer, HayPublic Magistrate Court Prosecutor,athnagar High Court CYberabad PoliceStatifor taton, Cyberabad Districthe State of Telangana} ayathnagar^at Hvderabad. [OUTI

¶54

4 :j1"" #I; i;I.^{ieduta chitralekha'Advocate[oPUC]} E 5r# & i"^{sti i. Prabhakar,Advocate toPUCl}

¶55

6 Two CD CoPies

¶56

kAIIT

¶57

HIGH COURT

¶58

DATED:0 2t}gtzL2s

¶59

--i:=_
i,J
,,r r;r l..'i."
'l)
,.\ ,}
i -:1
t. a)
[P ?$?5 ,.;., t i
t
-'l/'
1; i)l ltr-,;.r1,.-;

¶60

COMMON ORDER

¶61

CRLP.Nos.SSO9 of 2016and 1892 of 2021

¶62

¶63

¶64

DISPOSING^{OF THE} CRIMINAL^PETITIONS

M.A. Jahangir Khan, R.R.Dist. v. Sho, Hayathnagar P.S., R.R.Dist. and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A. Jahangir Khan, R.R.Dist. v. Sho, Hayathnagar P.S., R.R.Dist. and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Imadabattuni Venugopala Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

D.Vijay Chander Rao Vs The State of Telangana

S. Laxminarayanan, Vs The State of Telangana

P.Nandu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Karthikeya Traders Vs The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principle Secretary

Ghanshyam Das Karwa Vs The State of Telangana