Jameeruddin (wrongly shown as Ameeruddin MD in FIR) v. The State of Telangana and Another
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-20. Jameeruddin (wrongly shown as Ameeruddin MD in FIR) v. The State of Telangana and Another. Read...
Judgment text
[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY. IHE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3877 OF 2019 Between: Jameeruddin (wrongly shown as Ameeruddin ttl D in FIR) S/o. Gousuddin, lVluslim, Aged about 46 years R/o- Aloor Village, Chevella Mandal, Cyberabad District. ... PetitioneriAccused AND 1. The State of Telangana, rep. through PS, Chevella rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad ... Res po n d e nURes po n dent 2. Jayagalla Narsimulu S/o. Chennaiah, Indian, Aged about 38 years Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Mirzaguda, Chevella Mandal, Cyberabad District. RespondenUC om pla ina nt Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. praying that in the circumstances stated rn the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash S. C. No.
23612017 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for SC / STs (POA) Act / Addl Sessions Judge, L. B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District l. A. No. 1 OF 2019 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 S. C. No. 236/2O17 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for SC / STs (POA) Act / Addl. Sessions Judge, L,B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\tlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1-State and of [V1s. lt/runal Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH ('OURT FOR THT] STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYI)ERABAD 1'I I I' ItoN' BLE SRI . I I. -lSTI('E J.
SREENIVASRAO CIIIMINAL I'Fl'l'll'lON No. 3877 of 2019 D. ttc 20. 01. 2026 Betrveen: Jameeruddin (wrongly shown as Ameeruddin MD in FIR) ... Petitioner/accused NND State of Telangana and another. . . . Respondents ORDER: 'Ihis ('riminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in SC. No. 2l6 of'20 17, on the file of leamed Special Judge for SC/S'I's POA Act and Additionai Sessions Judge Court at L. B Nagar, Ranga Reddl' District, rvhcrein the petitioner was arrayed as accused tirr the of-fences punishablc under Seclions 324,326, 506 of the Indian I'enal Code, 1860 and Scctions 3(t), (r), (s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, i989, as amended bv Act I of 2016 (hercinafter referred to as "the Act") I - Crlp. No-3877-2019 ]SR,J 2. Heard Mr. K. Durgant Prasad, leamed counsel lor the petitioner and Ms. Mrunal Joshi, lcamed counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. M.
Vivekananda Reddy, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 1-State. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has not comrnitted any offencc, and he has been falsely implicated in the present casc. I{e lur-ther submitted that the petitioner never abused respondent No. 2 in the name ol his caste and made fulse and lrivolous allegations by implicating him for the offence under Section 324 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Section 3(l) (r) (s) ofSC, ST POA Act, 2015, to settlc lhe civil disputes, which are pending between the farrily of the petitioncr and thc lamily members of respondent No. 2 in OS. No. 4 of 2017 pending on the file ol the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddl'at Chr-r'ella. Hc also submitted that the petitioner and his family members arc the absolute owners to an extent ol Ac. 17. 24 guntas in Sy. Nos. 268 to 271. When the family members ol respondent No.
2 are trying to interlcrc with the above said property, the mother ol the petitioner filed a suit vide OS. No. 4 of 2017 on the Crlp. No. 3877_2019 ]SR,] file of the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Chevella for grant ofl perpetual injunction, restraining the delendants therein fi'om interfering with the suit schedule properly, wherein the said Court granted status-quo order and the said order is still existlng. When the respondent No. 2 is trying to ir. rterfere with the said property, the petitioner obstructed. However, respondent No. 2 to settle the civil disputes, which are pending belore the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, at the instance of the defendants therein, implicated the petitioner for the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 506 ofIPC and Sections 3(l)(r) and (s) olthe SCs and STs (POA) Act 1989 as amended in 2015. At the time ol the alleged incident, no eye witnesses were present.
However, the prosecution relied upon the statements of LWs 6 to ll who are cited as eye witnesses, filed the final report and they are the close relatives and friends olLWs I to 5. Hence, evidence olLWs 6 to ll cannot be taken into consideration. LWs I to 5 sustained only simple injuries and the ingredients for the ot'fence under Section 326 ol IPC are not attracted and also the offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC are not attracted. The nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint is Crlp. No. 3877,2019 civil in nature especially as the Civil Suit OS. No. 4 of 20 l7 is (livil Court. Hence the continuation pending before the competent ol petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law. proceedings against the the learned counsel appearing Per contra, on behalf of No. 2 vehemently contended that LWs 1to 5 sustained respondent grievous injuries at the hands o[ the petitioner.
At the time of the incident, LWs 6 to ll, who were eyewitnesses, were present their statements were recordcd under Section l6l of the Code of Procedure, wherein they have stated that the petitioner abused respondent No. 2 in the name olhis caste. Hence the ingredients of the offences are attracted against the petitioner. He further that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the submitted petitioner is that LWs 6 to I I were close relatives and friends and they not present at the scene ol ollence is not a fact. Basing on the the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. He further submitted that the matter before the leamed trial Court is coming up for trial. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full- C. 1p No. 3877_2019 J5R,] fledged trial. Especially. the matter before the trial Court is ripe lor trial. 5.
The lcarned Assistant Public Prosecutor also reiterated the submissions rnade by the leamed counsel for the respondent No. 2 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parlies and after perusal ol the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner and his family members are claiming rights over the properfy to an extent of Ac. 1,7. 24 gts. lt is not in dispute that a tamily menrber ol the petitioner filed a suit virle OS. No. 4 ol'2017 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge Chevella for grant ol perpetual injunction rcstraining thc defendants thcrein liorn interfering r. vith thc suit schedule prol)erty. Even according to the parties, rt rs not rn dispute that the lather ol respondent No. 2 was arrayed as dclendant along u,ith others. 7. The specific case olthe petitioner is that respondent No. 2 is not having any semblance of right in respect of the property covered in OS. No. 4 ol 2017 .
At the instance of the defendants therein the present Crlp. No. 3877_2019 - I5R,J complaint was filed to settle the civil disputes which are pending before the competent Civil Courl and the contention that LWs 6 to ll are interested witnesses of the respondent No. 2 cornplainant and whether LWs 6 to I I were present at the scene ol of'fence at the time of the alleged incident or not is disputed question ol lact and the same has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial court after a full-fledged trial. 8. Fort the foregoing reason, this Courl is ol the considered view that the contentions raised by the petitioner were disputed and the same cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Hence, this Courl is not inclined to quash the proceedings againsl the petitioner. However taking into consideration thc facts and circumstances ol thc case, the presence of the petitioner/accused in SC. No.
236 of 2011 , on the file of leamed Special Judge for SC/ST's POA Act and Additional Sessions Judge Couft at L. B Nagar, Ranga Reddy [)istrict,, sub. ject to the condition that he shall be represented through his counsel on each and cvery date ofhearing. Ilthe prescnce olthe pctitioner is rcquired, he shall appear belore the trial Court. ln case of his non-appearance on the specific crlp. No 1877 2019 JSR,I date fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with [aw. 9. Accordingly the Criminat petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. H. S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 i/TRUE COPYi/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Special Judge for SC/STs (POA) AcuAdditional Sessions Judge Court at L. B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The Station House Officer, Chevella Police Station, Cyberabad District. 3.
Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad tourl 4. One CC to Sri. K Durga Prasad, Advocate IOPUC] 5 One CC to IVls. lvlrunal Joshi, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ABK/PSL \r HIGH COURT DATED: 2010112026 #':"' s ORDER 7 3 Ff. 8 wfi CRLP. No. 3877 of 2019 * ,::;,1" :7 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION qeL ccR'" ,\ w
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.