LawSphereX

SHAIK SAIFULLAH @ KHALED v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-19. SHAIK SAIFULLAH @ KHALED v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA,. Read the judgment and case details on...

Judgment text

I 3303 | IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 2228 OF 2026 Between: 50 1 SHAIK SAIFULLAH KHALED, S/o Late Shak Mahboob Ali,^Age @ years,Occ. Advocate- , R/o H. No. 16-2-867/5,SBH Colony, Saidabad, Akbarbagh, Hyderabad. Nasreeruddin' Age' 38 2. MOHD BALEEGUDDIN @ JABER' s/o Late Mohd years,Occ. Business, R7o H. No. 16-2-8671N11, JYJ Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 3 AND 1. THE STATE OF TELANGANA,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad through P. S. SAYEEDABAD. 2. DIN DAYAL SINGH, S/o Not known to the Petitioners Age. Major Occ. Sub -lnspector of police Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad. ...

RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in c. c. No. 9315 on the file of the vll Additional ihief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in so far as the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 3 , are concerned considering the above stated tact sand reasons rn the interest of justice, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2026 PetitlonunderSection52EofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petitaon, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pending in C. C. No 9315 of 2020 on the file of the Vlt Additionat Chief Metropolitan Magiskate, Hyderabad, in so far as the petitioners/Accused No.

1 and 3, are concerned, pending disposal of the Quash iretition, considering the above stated facts and reasons, in the interest of justice, and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t re Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argur rents of Sri SYED AHMED ALI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender F ao Veeramalla. the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 anc None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER w IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABI,E SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMIN AL PETITION No. 2228 of 2026 Date:19. 02. 2026 Between Shaik Saifutlah Khaled and another @ ... Petitioners AND The State of 1-elangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad through P. S. Sayeedabad and another .. Respondents Order I This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.

and 3 seeking to quash thc proceedings against him in C. C. No. 93 l5 ol 2020 on the file of learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitarr Magistrate at Hyderabad. 'lhe 2. facts of the case in brief are that, on 27. 06-2020 at l8:30 of Police, hours, the tle-facto complainant, who is the Sub-Inspector 4 that the accused Saidabad Police Station, todged a complaint stating + of thcir gathered 500 members and perforrned namaz and cremation CO\rlD- 19 lather namely N'loulana Nazeeruddin who died due to without maintailling any social distance by a process r n via main road fiom VIP school to Saidabad X roads in violation cl the COVID-19 nornrs and the lockdown orders promulgated by tht: (iovcmment of Telangana vide G. O. Ms. Nos. 45 and 46. 3. Heard Mr. Syed Ahmed Ali, leamed counsel ti,r and ltetilioners Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional pr blic prosecutor appearing for the rcspondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitionc'rs accused Nos.

l and 3 submits that the petitioners are innocent and r rd been falsely implicated in the case. I [e furrher submirs that Sect r n I 95( I )(a) of Cr. P. C. bars taking cognizance of the offence undcr jection 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (lor short 'lPC'). . xcepr on the complaint in rvriting of the public scrvant concerncd o o{'some other public servant to whom he is administratively sub,r. rlinate. In the present case, the complaint was lodged by the de-. fact ) complainant, who is not a cotnpetent person, the present FIR is nc: rnaintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. He further sr rmits that the offence under Section 269 of the IPC shall be deerntr to have been committed under Section 188 ol the lPC. When Sec. . lrr I88 of the IPC warrants filing ol-a private complaint, the -:ction same re:r' applies to Section 269 of the IPC also. since the prime offence under Section 188 of the IPC is barred by Section 195(l)(a) of Cr. P. C.

, the whole proceedings are without j urisdiction. 5. In support ol his contention, leamed counsel'for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnalaka v. Hemtreddl,l , wherein, at paragraph No. 8, it is held as follows: '' H'e ugrctc tith lhe via* erpressatl ht' the learned. Iudge und hold thut in cuse. s v'here it lhe course of the sturtc transaclion an oflence for which no L'ontplei t b,a Court is neccssun' under Seclion 195(l) lb) of thr: q Cule of Crininal Proceclure ond an offence lor which a cotnploint of ('ourt is e. assdry under lhal sub scction are commilled, it is nol possible to split up and hold thal the Proseculion of the accused for tha offtuces not mentioned in Sectiott l9i(l)A) of the Code of Criminul Procedure should he upheld. (Emphusis suppliedl" 6. F'urther, this Court in Crl. P. No.

l460l of 2025, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences atteged against the petitioner therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petrtloners. t AIR 1981 sc 1417 \ 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, o I the other hand, submitted that the petitioners herein had also becn r harged with the off'ences other than 188 of the IPC. Hence, the learrr: I Maqistrate has rightly taken cognizance ol the aforesaid ollerL, es against the petitioners basing on the final report filed by the I)o i:c.

As such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizan: ' taken by the leamed Magistrate cannot be said to be one without iL rthority of Law He lurther submitted that the truth or otherwise o f r he- allegations levelled against the petitioners can only be know,n z lter conducting full-fledged trial, and hence prayed to disrniss the pet I on 8. For the sake of convenience. Section 188 of 'C and Section 195 of Cr. P. C. are extracted hereunder. "Section 188 ol IPC:- Dj5o! 9d14A 41 order dul. ,- prontulq,t 1llty44! lic servanl lYhoever. bnu'ing that. by on order pronulgot(. , b1, u public -servant latfullv enpowercd to pronrulgalc such ortlcr. hr t. dit. ('cted lo abstain fron o cerlein act, or to lake certeitt order u'ilh tcrtt,i pr,4rr'rtt. in his possession or under his monugenpnl, disobe_ys suth dite . rn. :lrull, if' such disobt:dience cduses lo tc der lo (ause obslructiut, t lo,ttnce or injury, or risk of obstructbn, . ut o)\tnce or i4ury, to dn t tn ltur,full.

y l)t employed, he punished u,ith sinplc impri. somncnl u tcr t t. hit h nury . [or axtend lo onc month or wilh *'hich rtnc may exlend lo ttlt hu r tretl nrpecs, or v)ilh bolh,. and if such disobcdience ce&\es or trends to cu t t, dunge,r to lnunan lifc. health or safely, or couscs or tends tct caust tt rr t or ol'[nt, '-l' shall be punished v'ith inprisonnent ol either description ftt| L t. :nn t,hitlt Hy exlend b ! iL\ nnnlhs, or with fine which nwy cxte d t. ' t L tltousrtnd nrpees. or t,itlt bolh. "Section l9S of Cr. P. C:- Proseculi( for conlennt of lov'ful euthorit vof public servants. lir o qsainsl ffancas ruhlic iustit:e ond for ot'fences relaliu,c to 5 documenls gitcn in cvidence. (l) No (-ourts shull lake cogni:ance- (a) fi) oI unr ttffence punish<tble under se(. ltuts 172 to 188 (both inclusive)ofthe Indian Penul Code (15 of 1860), or fiit of an. v uhttn(ut oJ: u cnqt lo Lonuit. such offence, or (iii) of any crinrutal con.

spiracy lo contmit, stch oflence, except on thc complainl in vtriting of the public servunl concerned or of sone glher puhlic ser'-uttt lo whon he is adntinislrqtiveb'subordinatt.. (b)(i1 r{ any offcnce punishahle under ony o/ thc foltowing scctions of rhc lndicnt Penal ('ode (15 of 1860), nanely, scL:tions 19J to l96 (both inclusive), 199. 200. 205 to 2l I (both inclusivel urul )28, u*en such o/fcnce is alleged to hoe been conntitted in. or in relalnn lo, uny pntceeding in any Court, or (ii) of uny <tffence describecl in sectktn 163, or punishable under section 471. section 175 or section 176 oJ lhc said (lodc. when such offence rs alleged to htne hecn commiued in respecl ofa docuntent produced or givcn in evidence in a proceeding in any L'ourt. or (iii) of any crininul conspiracy lo conntit, or uttcnpt to conntil, or lhe abelnent o[, any, offcnce spccifiecl in sub-clause (i1 or sub-claute (ii)- " 9.

Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is evident that the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section 188 of the IPC have been initiated basing on the complaint made by the de lacto complainant, who is a Police Officer, but not on the basis of complaint in writing of the public servant I \ concemed, AS IS required under Section 195(lXa) of Cr. P. C. i Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners fbr the olfence under Section 188 of the [PC are liable to be quashed. Insofar as the other ofTence i-c. , Sections 269 ol- the [PC-- is conc: rred. as per thc of [{on'ble . iudgment Supreme Court in Hemaredtl-y t case (supru), it is clear that if the offences form part of the same tr Lnsaction of the olfences conternplated under Section 195 of Cr. P. Cl. , L is nor possible t<l split up and hold the prosecution of the petitioners.

IJence, the Irll{ culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid ofl: rces against the petitioners stands vitiated and the continuati(); ol' criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abus r ol' process of law 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Crinr nal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioncr; accuscd Nos. I and 3 in C. C. No. 93 15 of 2020 on the file of learneri Vll Additional Cheif Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are here: I quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha I stand closed : Sd/. C. SULEKHA DEVI 'ANT ASSIIi REGISTRAR i-? /,TRUE COPY/' T ECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Vll Additional Chief Mekopolitan Magistrate at Nampu ly, Hyderabad ' 2. The Station House Officer, Saidabad Potice Station. Hvdb r r6ad - 3. One CC to SRI SYED AHMED ALl, Advocate tOpUCt 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court'of Telahgarr r at Hyderabad lourl 5. Two CD Copies SM/BA s +F-". -*-4-"*---*"-_'=;&! HIGH COURT DATED: 1910212026 .

,4. a Te rr)26 z ORDER o I \ t t CRLP. No. 2228 ot 202G dO {) l'g ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION lub Z to

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.