Dismissed

M.A. Asghar Hussain Mujahi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Oct 2025CRLP/8783/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings for cheating forgery. Court held not a fit case to quash due to prima facie allegations of fraud. Petition disposed of by dispensing with petitioner's court attendance pending representation by counsel.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings not quashed. Petitioner's attendance dispensed with pending trial but representation by counsel required.

M.A. Asghar Hussain Mujahi Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t3444l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8783 OF 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

M.A. Asghar Hussain [/u]ahi, S/o Late Ahmmed Hussain, Aged 49 years, Occ- Business, Caste- IVIuslim, R/o. H.No. 19-4-1412110, Hashamabad, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad.

¶9

AND

¶10

..PETTTtONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶11

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

¶12

2 N4oh d Aslam lbrahim, S/o. Irrlohd. lbrahim Aged 27 years, Occ- Business R/o H.No 12-2-411C13133/1/A. Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

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 quash the criminal proceedings in CC No 944 of 2022, on the file of the Court of Xll Addl. Judicral First Class Magistrate. Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, so far as the petitioner/Accu sed No.1 is concerned. in the interest of Justice, and to pass

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶16

Petitron 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in CC No. 944 of 2022, on lhe file of the Court of Xll Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy Drstrict, so far as the petitroner/Accused No.1 is concerned, pending disposal of Criminal Petition, and pass

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N SRIKANT ,Advocate^for the Petitioner and SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA the Addl. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: OROER

¶19

THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DI:/I EADA

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8783 OF 2OZ!;

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This C:iminal Petition is filed by the petitic,ner - ?ccused No'1 seekrng to quash the proceedings in C.C.No 914 of ZO22 on the file of the learned Xll Additional Judicial First Class lvlagrstrate. Rajendranag:rr, Ranga Reddy District, registered 1or the offences under Sections 419. 420,468,471,120-8 read wiflr 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "lPC").

¶23

2 Heard lhe submissions of Sri N. Srikanth, learled counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Ierrrned Additional PLrblic Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

¶24

3 The iearned counsel for the petitioner has sr-rbmrtted that the petitroner is facing false allegations and that he har; never cheated the de-facto complainant and has not forged ?n! rj1;6gmsnts The allegation rs that the petrtioner has impersonatr:c and created forged docunrents and sold the land to gain wro r1;fully is totally false. He further submitted that the petitioner hereirr has admittedly sold the plots under Registered Sale Deeds in the year 2009 and 201C and handed over the possession also 1o the de-facto

; I

1 I I

)

-".a

complainant and the de-facto complainant has also got satisfied lvith the same. He further subnritted that it is the duty of the cle_facto corrplainant to protect his own plot after the purchase, when the third parties claim the said property, the de-facto corxplainant has come up with false allegations against the petitioner herein after long years of transaction. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶30

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has registered six plots by impersonating the originai owner as revealed fron.r the investigation. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶31

Perused the record

¶32

The recitals of the charge sheet point out prima-facie allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner along with other accused have colluded with each other and created forged and fabricated documents and had sold away the plots totally admeasuring 1519 square yards in Sy.Nos.94 and 9512 situated at Mailardevpally Village, to the de-facto complainant with an intention to cheat the de-facto complainant. The prosecution could examine and record the statements of witnesses and also has collected

¶33

tI t

¶34

¶35

dccumentary evidence which needs to be tested duri rg tne course

¶36

of trial. Thus, it is not a fit case to quash the proceed ngs

¶37

7 ln the resr-rlt, the Criminal Petition is disposeri of dispensing wrth the attendance of the oetitioner before the tria I Court, unless his oresence is specifically required by the trial Crrrrt during the course of trial,^provided that he shall be represented by his counsel

¶38

on every date of nearing

¶39

lVliscellaneous applications pending, if an'1, shall stand

¶40

closed

¶41

SD/-M.NAGAMANI ASSISIANT REGISTRAR

¶42

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

I
_-----l-
\ I
siETTIoN oFFIcER

¶45

To,

¶46

'1 . The Addl. Judicial First Class l\4agistrate, Rajendranagar Ranga Reddy District.

¶47

2 The SHO Mailardevpally Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District

¶48

One CC to SRI N SRIKANT Advocate IOPUC]

¶49

4 One CC to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT]

¶50

Two CD Copies

PK/PSI ,,1 Ita!. #'

i! t I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811012025

DISPOSSED OFF

CRLP.No.8783 of 2025

--- - _=-
5. ri..i I€
(1\f'
8r il{Xt, G
62
'4 -J
oaSr,ArClr[, D a

¶58

3A
\ lr<br>

M.A. Asghar Hussain Mujahi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A. Asghar Hussain Mujahi 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

Y. Radha Vs The State of Telangana

Devara Muralikrishna, Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Sarfaraz khan Vs The State of Telangana

Kush Kumar Mishra alias Kush Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. N.Swetha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Krishna Goud, Vs The State of Telangana