| |
CDJ 2025 TSHC 1381
|
| Court : High Court for the State of Telangana |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No. 16286 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO |
| Parties : Mohammed Asadulla Khan Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Md. Fasiuddin, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor. |
| Date of Judgment : 09-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
2. Catch Words:
- Quash
- Abuse of process
- Criminal petition
- Appearance dispensed
- Representation by counsel
3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings against him in a case under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC, alleging false implication. The prosecution contended that specific allegations justified the charges and that the matter should proceed to investigation. After reviewing the material, the Court found that allegations against the petitioner existed and therefore could not quash the trial. However, considering the petitioner’s occupation, the Court ordered that his personal appearance be dispensed with, provided he is represented by counsel at each hearing, and that non‑appearance may lead to continuation of proceedings. The petition was consequently disposed of, and any pending applications were closed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.25 of 2024, on the file of learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.5, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).
2. Heard Mr. Mohammed Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared through video conference and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, do not attract the ingredients under Sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law. Though the criminal petition was filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.25 of 2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer requesting this Court to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner/accused No.5 in P.R.C.No.25 of 2024, on the file of learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Sections Sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of proceedings against him. Thus, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the final report. Thus, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. However, taking into consideration the occupation of the petitioner, the presence of the petitioner/accused No.5 in P.R.C.No.25 of 2024, on the file of learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, is dispensed with, subject to the condition that the petitioner/accused No.5 shall be represented by his counsel on every date of hearing, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of the trial. In the event of non-appearance of petitioner/accused No.5 on any date so fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court shall be entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
|
| |
