Disposed

Mrs. Maahavi and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC3 Sept 2025CRLP/7062/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, elderly housewives accused in a matrimonial criminal case, sought recall of non-bailable warrants issued on their non-appearance. The High Court directed them to move an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. or Section 72(2) BNSS before the trial court within two weeks, to be decided without insisting on personal presence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to file recall application under S.70(2) CrPC/S.72(2) BNSS within two weeks; Magistrate to consider it without personal presence.

Mrs. Maahavi and another Vs The State of Telangana and… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ANd TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:7062 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mrs. Maahavi, Wo A.Sanjay Tagore, Aged about 53^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Flat No.105, Prathaprudra Dream, lt.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

Smt.Rudramadevi, Wo Pratap Reddy, Aged about 72^years, Occ.^Housewife, R/o Flat No.'105, Prathaprudra Dream, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

..Petitioners/Accused No. 5 & 6

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

Smt.A.Sridevi, Wo A.Sanjay Tagore, Aged about 43, Occ.-Social Worker, Presently Residing at 1/1561, Gandhinai;ar, Emmiganur, Kurnool Kurnool District. (Ordinarily R/o 20 Achilis Court, Palmestone North, Newzealand.-

¶14

...Respondents/Complainants

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .Q^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^Petition, the^High Court^{may be} pleased to recall and cancel the N.B.W.s penping against the petitioners/ accused No.S and 6 on the file of Xlll Addl.Metroqolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabadⁱⁿ C.C.No.98 of 2016, D1.-1010112017, by allowirlg this^petition.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{ppon perusing} the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^hearingthe arguments of^{Mr. Sameer} Anurag Jashtadi, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENII'AS RAO

¶19

CRTMINAL PETITIOT{ No.7O62 OF 2O2l

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Petition has been hled to recz,ll and cancel the NBWs issued against the petitioners who are accused Nos.S and 6 in C.C. No.98 of 2OL6 dated 10.01.2016 by the learned XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderab:rd.

¶22

Heard Mr. Sameer Anurag Jashtadi, learrerl Counsel lor the petitioners and learned Assistant Publir: Prosecutor appearing on bchalf of respondent No. 1.

¶23

Notices in respect of respondent No.2 is dispcnsed rvith on the ground that this Criminal Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders issued by the trial Court issuing N.B.Ws.^I

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioners sultnrits that the petitioners have not committed any offence, r_h.: ingredients under Sections 494 and 406 of IPC are not attract( d against the petitioners. Petitioners could not appea-r before tlie trial Court due to health reasons on 10.01.2017. Howev,:r the learned Magistrate issued N.B.Ws on 10.01.2017. The Potitioner No. 1 is a house wife now she is aged abour- 57 years and potitioner No.2

¶25

¶26

is also house wife and she is aged about 76 years and they are suffering with oldage ailments, unless the N.B.Ws are recalled, the petitioners will be put to great hardship.

¶27

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners ought to have filed application before the learned Magistrate seeking to redall the N.B.Ws and on the other hand straight away approached this Court and filed the present application, and the "a-d is not maintainable under law.

¶28

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals ttrat the petitiorlers were made as accused Nos.S and 6 in C.C. No.98 of 2016 for the offences punishable I under Sections 494 and 506 of IPC.

¶29

[rarned Magistrate issued N.E.Ws against the petitioners on 10.O1.2017. T}:re specihc case of the petitioners is that due to health reasons they could not attended the Court below, the same is neittrer willful nor wanton. To establish the above said facts, the petitioners have filed medical records as material papers from page Nos.30 to 46 along with Criminal Petition.

¶30

¶31

¶32

The recorcl further discioses that the^{petitioners have not} approached thc trial Court and filed application^{sr:eJ<ingto recall} the N.B.Ws which is available as^per the^provisiorrs of^Section 70(21 of Cr.P.C. and Section 72(2) of BNSS.

¶33

Taking into consideration tlte above stticl facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the c,rr sidered^view that a direction be given to the petitioners to file arr application for recalling of N.B.Ws., which were issued agirinst them on lO.Ol.2O17, under Section 70(21 of Cr.P.C, or Section⁷²⁽²¹ of BNSS, within a period of two (2) weeks from the d;rte^{of receipt} of a copy of this order and on such application^{lteing filed, the} learned XIII Adctitional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to consider thc same and pass appropriate oriers,^without insisting the^pe rsonal^presence of the^petitioners brf,uly^taking into consider:rtion their age and health^{,.o.rditio.r",in} accordance with law, within a period of four^{weeks from} thereafter.

¶34

With thc above said direction, the^{CriminrLl Petitionis} disposed of. No costs.

¶35

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions, if 4ny, pending in the Criminal

¶37

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Xlll Additional Mekopolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶43

The Station House Officer, Central Crime Station Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶44

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Statg of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶45

One CC to Mr. Sameer Anurag Jashtadl, Advocate IOPUCI

¶46

Two CD Copies

DU SL d

-.1

H]GH COURT

DATED:03/09/2025

)1 <br>c
(-<br>

ORDER

CRLP.No.7062 of 2021

CRIMINAL PETITION IS OISPOSED OF

¶55

oq
-D

Mrs. Maahavi and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Maahavi and another v. The State of Telangana and another

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

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

P.Nandu Vs The State of Telangana

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

Rajath Kumar Sharma and another Vs State of Telangana and another

Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

P.Ramesh Babu Vs State of Telangana