Sajid uddin Syed @ Syed Sajid uddin Vs The State of Telangana

Sajid uddin Syed @ Syed Sajid uddin, S/o. Mohd. Habib, aged about 40 years, Occ - Business, R/o. H.No. Road No.S, Snehapuri Colony, Kamareddy, T.S. 503111 presently residing at C/o. Al-Sabaeen Trading Est,, P.O.Box 41879, Ali Bin Abi Talib Street, Riyad-1 1531 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, tvlobile No. 966 557127462.

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, through rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

...Respondent/Complainant

¶14

Mrs. lnthiyaz Begum, Wo. Sayed Mohd. Sattar aged about 40 years, Occ. Hosuewife R/o. H.No.5-8-388, Street No.3, Snehapuri Colony, Kamareddy District, T. S. -5031 11.

¶15

...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant

¶16

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 proceedings in C.C. No. 28 of 2024 of Folice Kamareddy Police Station on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Kamareddy District at Kamareddy.

¶17

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2024

¶18

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 stay all further proceedings in C.C. No. 28 of 2024 of Kamareddy Police Station on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-Cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Kamareddy District at Kamareddy including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused before the lower court pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶19

This Petition^{coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds} of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argumentsof Sri lt/adanuNaresh,} Advocate for the^{Petitioner and Sri E Ganesh,Assistant Public Prosecutoron behalf} of the Respondent^{No.1and none appeared for the Respondent No 2'}

¶20

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7038 OF 2024

¶24

05th February,2026

¶25

Between:

¶26

Sajid uddin Syed @ Syed Sajid uddin

¶27

... Petitioner/Accused

¶28

AND

¶29

The State of Telangana and Another

¶30

...Respondents

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (tor short,^"Cr.P.C."), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioneriaccused in C.C. No. 28 of 2024 of Kamareddy Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy District, Kamareddy

¶33

Heard Mr. [Vladanu Naresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and [Vlr. E Ganesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State

¶34

3, The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in C.C. No. 28 of 2024 and is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 509 and 504 ofthe lndian Penal Code, 1860.

¶35

.-

¶36

2

¶37

4 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.10.2023, the defacto complainant lodged a report alleging that on the same day at about 2.00 p.m , when she went to her aunt's house situated at Snehapuri Colony, her brother-in-law, who is the accused herein, abused her in filthy language, pushed her out of the house, and thereby insulted and intimidated her, for which she sought appropriate legal action

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the investigation is vitiated by serious lapses and non-application of mind. It is contended that on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner was not even present in lndia, as he was working in Dubai. ln support of this contention, copies of the petitioner's passport have been placed on record. which clearly demonstrate his departure from Hyderabad on 07.07.2023 and his return only on 22.10.2023. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as well as the conclusions drawn by the lnvestigating Officer in the charge sheet, are ex facie false, baseless, and unsustainable in law. On these grounds, quashment of the proceedings is sought

¶39

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that after due investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation prima facie support the version of the defacto complainant. However, he fairly

¶40

3

¶41

submits that the aspect^relating to the^{petitioner's physical presence} at the scene^{of offence could not be effectively verified,} as the^{crime was} reported after^{a month, He further} submits that in view of the material placed by the petitioner, appropriate orders may be passed by this Court in accordance with law

¶42

7 I have carefully perused the material placed on record,

¶43

The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that he was not in lndia on the date of the alleged incident. The copies of the^passport produced before this Court clearly reveal that the petitioner departed from Hyderabad on 07.07.2023 and returned only on 22.10.2023. This documentary evidence prima facie establishes that on 16.10 2023, the petitioner was outside the country and could not have been present at the alleged place of occurrence. ln such circumstances, the foundational facts necessary to constitute the alleged offences under Sections 504 and 509 IPC are conspicuously absent.

¶44

lt is well settled that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 C1P.C can be exercised to^prevent abuse of the^process of law or to secure the ends of^justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, has authoritatively laid down illustrative categories where criminal^proceedings may be^quashed, including cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not

¶45

4

¶46

-I

¶47

disclose the commission of any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides

¶48

l0 Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, despite unimpeachable documentary evidence demonstrating his absence from the country on the date of the alleged incident, would amount to a clear abuse of the process of the Court

¶49

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 28 of 2Q24 o'f Kamareddy Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy District, Kamareddy, are hereby quashed

¶50

lVliscellaneous petitrons, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

Sdi- K.BHAVANI SWAMY SISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Judicial First Class Magistrate Cum prin al Junior Civil Judge, at Kamareddy District at Kamareddy

¶56

B,

¶57

2 The Station House Officer, Kamareddy Town police Station, Kamareddy 3 One CC to SRt MADANU NARESH, Advocate [OpUC] 4 Two CCs to the public prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶58