Disposed

Khaja Moinuddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Aug 2025WP/23757/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging police inaction in investigating his wife's death by suicide after alleged chit-fund cheating. Respondents reported investigation ongoing with FSL report received. Court directed SP to act on both FIRs expeditiously and SHO to investigate strictly per law.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to act upon FIR Nos. 378/2024 and 165/2024 expeditiously; respondent No.4 to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law. No costs.

Khaja Moinuddin Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I^s2s5 ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN^KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 23757 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Khaja tVloinuddin, S/o. Jaffar, aged about^{45 y.eg1s,.} o.!.^Driver,R/o. Nadigadda Village. Telkapally Man.dal, Nagarkumool^{District, TS}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Prl. Secretary,HomeDepartment,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Nagarkumool^{District, TG.}

¶15

The Deputy Superintendent of^{Police, Nagarkurnool District, TG.}

¶16

The Station Housing Officer, Nagarkurnool^{Police Station, Nagarkumool, TG.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more^{particularly one in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus to declare the action^{of the respondent no 3, 4 in not initiating} investigation even after 6^{monthsof registration of FIR No. 37812024 on the File of} PS Nagarkurnool for the death of^{his wife by abetment of suicide by persons} arrayed as accused no.^{1 -} 7^{in FIR No. 16512024on the file of PS Telkapallyeven} after repeated representations to the^{respondent no. 3,4 by directingthe} respondents no. 3 and 4 to conduct^{investigation against the persons responsible} for her death

¶19

lA NO: 1OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct investigation against the persons mentioned in the complaint of the petitioner dt. 02-1 1-2024 and the accused names given by the deceased wife of the petitioner in her complaint dt. 13-08-2024

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BATTHULA THARUN PAL

¶22

Counset for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.23757 of 2025

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:-

¶28

"to issue a Wit, Ordcr or Direction rnore pnrticularly one in tlu nahtre of Wfi of Mandnmus to declare tlu action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not initiating inaestigation eaen after 6 months of registration of FIR No.3782024 on tlu File of PS Nagarkurnool for^the death of his toife by abetment of suicide by persons arrayed^asaccused Nos. 7-7 in FIR No.1.658.024 on tlu fl, of PS Tellapally^{eaen after} repented reprexntations to the respondent nos.i, 4 by directing tlu respondents nos.3 and 4 to coiduct inaestigation against tle persons responsible for ler death and pass."

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as a driver^and he was married to one Nasreen Begum and has two children livingⁱⁿ Nagarkurnool. [t is submitted that one person by name Zahedr^{@ Chotemiya} and Munawar, approached the wife of the petitioner and asked^{her to invest} amount for the purpose of children higher studies, and if she^invests Rs.8,50,000/- towards a future release Fixed Deposit, they promised^{to pay} high interests and a Chit Fund in which. the amount to Pay every^month would be Rs. L,00,000/ - (One Lakh Rupees) per month^{which can be lifted} whenever she need.s and the returns would be Rs.^{28,00,000/-as therearc 28} people involved in the chit business. The petitioner submits^{that his deceased} wife invested the amounts which she saved since many years,^{and for a few} months, Zaheer @ Chotemiya and Munawar paid her high^{interests regularly.} It is further submitted that after few months Zaheer Chotemiya^{and Munawar} stopped paying interests, and they had also cheated.others^{in similar Fixed}

¶30

¶31

¶32

Deposit and Chit Fund Schemes to a tune of Rs. 10-15 crores involving around 45-50 victims similar to the deceased wife of the petitioner. It is submitted that the deceased Nasreen Begum, the wife of the petitioner filed a complaint in PS Telkapally on L3-08-2024 against Zaheer @ Chotemiya, Munawar, Abeda, lrfan, Ikram, Shamsuddin, Khaja Pasha and an FIR was registered with Crime No. L65/2024 under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of TSPDFEA on the file of rlS Telkapally, and the same has been taken up for investigation. The petitioner's wife having lost money and to overcome with depression consumed pesticide poison on 19-10-2024, and on knowing the same, she was immediately admitted in Gayathri hospital and as she was critical, she was later shifted to Mythri Hospital, Mehdipatnam on 20-10-2024 and was in critical condition for almost 12 days where she succumbed to the poison on 0111.-2024.

¶33

, Thereafter, the petitioner approached the PS Nagarkurnool and gave a complaint to respondent No. 4 requesting to take action on the persons who were responsible for his wife's death i-e., Zaheera Chotemiya, Munawar, Abdullah Khan, Ikram, but to the surprise of the petitioner, an FIR was registered with Crime No. 378/2024 in tlS Nagarkurnool, without mentioning the names of the accused. It is further submitted that the deceased wife of the petitioner made a complaint against the persons mentioned by the petitioner in his complaint, wherein all the persons named by the petitioner in his complaint were already arrayed as accused Nos.L to 7 in FIR No. 165/2024 on the file of tlS Telkapally, but respondent No. 4 faited to include their names !n

¶34

,+-${".^{-r:1': ..}

¶35

I I\ ,:;: E*'-,

¶36

'; ,l li iI il. IIi "i'

.., n:i,i::li*-

\ \ i

I I

the FIR No. 378/2024 on the file of^{tlS Nagarkurnool.Thereafter, the} petitioner submitted multiple representations^{requesting to take action against} the people, who are responsible for^{the death of his wife, but no actionhas} been taken by the respondents. Questioning^{the same,the presentwrit petition} is filed.

¶42

Sri M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home} appearing for respondent Nos.'L. to 4^{placedinstructions of respondent No.4} wherein it is stated that on 26.71.2024, the Investigation^{Officer has deputed} HC 1.562, T. Venkataiah, to SDPO office,^{Nagarkurnoolwith instructions to} collect the authorization letter from^{the SDPOOffice, Nagarkurnool.TheHC} 1562 took the forwarding Letter and Memo^{from SDPO,Nagarkurnool. On} 27.1L.2024, the Investigation Officer instructed^{and issuedMemo to HC 1562,} T. Venkatalah, for collecting the viscera box to^{deposit the same at RFSL,} Butpur at Mahabubnagar for chemical^{analysis.The HC 1562 depositedthe} viscera box and obtained the FSL receipt No:^{RFSL(MBNR)/837,} 810/657/2024, dated 27.11..2024. On^{20.12.2024the InvestigationOfficer} received the FSL report in this^{case vide File No.RFSL/MBNR/TOX/2024,} dated 20.12.2024, in which the experts opined that "The^{item L, 2 and 3 are} analysed, but no poisonous substance is found in them". On 25.12.2024 the Investigation Officer obtained the final medical opinion and detailed PME from the autopsy Medical Officer Dr. A.Dasharatham. I C.A.S RMO GGHNagarkurnool in which he opined that based on FSL Report the item L,2 andS are analysed, but no poisonous substance is found in them. The cause of death

¶43

¶44

<sup>,,n t I.'i#..i,.9 -l:trfl:,

¶45

¶46

¶47

is due to cardiac Arrest. It is submitted that, the S.I. of Police caused further investigation to know the cause of death of the deceased, but no clues came to light. [t is further submitted that the Investigation Officer met the Public Prosecutor and discussed about this case as to whether the case is eligible for section alteration or not and the P.P. reserved his opinion. After receiving PP opinion, necessary action will be taken in the crime, as per law.

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal today.

¶49

Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, since the respondents have already taken up the investigation into the said crimes which are pending before the P.P, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to act upon both the FIRs i.e., FIR No.378/2024 and 165/2024, as expeditiously as possible, and respondent No.4 shall conduct investigation into the said crimes shictly in

¶50

accordance with law.

¶51

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order

¶52

as to costs.

¶53

SD/. C. DEEPIKA^./ REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Prl. secretary, Home Department, secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶58

The Superintendent of Police, Nagarkumool District, TG.

¶59

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagarkurnool District, TG.

¶60

The Station Housing Officer, Nagarkurnool Potice Station, Nagarkumool, TG

¶61

One CC to SRl. BATTHULA THARUN PAL Advocate [oP

¶62

-w^cnk&-

¶63

Two ccs to GP FoR HofME ,High court for the state of relangana. [oUT] 7. Two CD Copies

KKS GJP

wq-

HIGH COURT

\ DATED:12108t2025

ORDER

WP.No.23757 of 2025

I
S TA,
t
tr!l
orJ 01 r,i .r lt ?r? b t,
Ji..
*
l]

¶72

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶73

@p^a :p-llA>5

Khaja Moinuddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Moinuddin 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

Pagidiala Narsimulu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Adam Ali, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Kaleem Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Syed Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Panuganti Kranti Sangharsh Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Athmakuri Veerabhadra Rao Vs The State of Telangana