Tayyaba Parveen v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-27. Tayyaba Parveen v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
r) [3385 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE NO: 838 OF 2024 criminal Revision case fired under Section 43g and 442 of BNSS Act against the order dated 24. 04. 2024 passed in crllvp No 535 of zo24 in cc No 9501 of 2021 on the fite of the court of the XV Additionat chief MetropoliLn [/agistrate, Hyderabad Betwee n: Tayyaba Parveen, Wo. Mohammed Rafeeq Ahmed, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 10- 3- 2tA, Ftat No. 103, I Floor, Metro plaza Apartments, Mehdipatnam Hyderabad. ... Petitioners/Acc used No. 2 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad through SHO, Women Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. 2 Hoor Unnisa, Wo Mohammed Raheel Ahmed Aged about 30 years Occ: Housewife R/o H No B- 1- 347 tBl2g 'lst Floor Aziz Bagh Tolichowki Gotconda Hyderabad ...
Respondents/Defacto Complainant l. A. No. 1 ot 2O24 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C. C. No. 9501 of 2021 on the file of the Hon,ble XV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad pending disposal of crrminal Revrsion Case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M A MUJEEB Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI D ARUN KUMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI SADDULA SHAREEF The Court made the following: ORDER ii IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI), ,AI{GANA AT IIYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JT'STICE K. SU. ANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 838 of 1 t_t21 27. Or. 2026 Between: Tayyaba Parvccr. t PETITIONER AND State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecu tor, High Court for t he Statc of Telangana, at Hyderabad, And another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER This revision case is filed by revision petitic I cr/accused No. 2 challenging rhc order dated 24. 04. 2024 passed in 'lrl. MP. No. 535 of 2024 rn CC-No. 9SO I ol 2O2l on the fite of the X v Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. The said ( rl. MP. , was ltled seeking discharge of petitioner from the offences al :ged agau-rst him under Sectrons 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 o' )owry Prohibition Act- Aggrieved by dismissal of the said petitior. this revision is preferred. 2. Heard Sri MA. Mujeeb, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional public prosecutor appearlng for respondent No. l, and Sri Saddura Shareef, learned counser [or respondent No. 2. . 1. Learned counsel lor revision petitioner submilted that the trial Courl erred in dismissing the application for discharge without assigning any reasons or addressing the contentions raised by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitio.
er and de facto complainant had already filed joint memo for compromising the matter and that except vague allegations there is no material on record to frame charge against the petitioner. Therefore, while advocating that the petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged, he prayed this Court to allow this revision case, setting aside the impugned order and drscharging the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Rrblic prosecutor, and learned counsel for respondent No. 2, respectively, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for revision petitioner and asserted that the trial court had rightry dismissed the discharge petition and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the impugned order. Therefore, prayed t his Court to dismiss the revision case. 5. Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the allegations against the petitioner are that she along with ,{1 had demanded a flat and . n of Rs.
5,0O,OOO/- as additional dowry and as the fatht:; complainant refrlsed it, the petitioner had allegedly abused com lainant and her 1 -rless father and also necked out the complainant saying : she brings additional doq'rw, she cannot enter into house. That . l art, the material on record r. t ould shou, that thc allcgatrons against -l-re A1 are with regarding to abusing, torturing and threatening comp . : inant. According to complainant, she was informed that Al had marrit r another $roman two years back- That being so, it can be obsent:, that there are primary allegations against A1 and not against this p''. itioner. 6. ln vieu' thereof, this criminal revision case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 24. 04. 2024 passed in Cr1. MP. r r. 535 of 2024 in CC. No. 9SO 1 of 2O2l and discharging the petitioner accused No. 2 in , CC. No. 95O1 of'2021.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shaI stand closed SD/- K,MADHAVI I; STANT REGISTRAR t //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The XV Additional Chief tvletropolitan Magistrate H der : bad The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan f\4agistrate, yde:, bad J The Station House Officer, WPS, CCS, DD Police Stati,r r. Hyderabad 4 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State r f Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 One CC to Sri t\/ A tt/ujeeb, Advocate IOPUC] 6 One CC to Sri Saddula Shareef, Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two CD Copies M AB K /PSL , h HIGH COURT PDATED: 271O112026 1f R ( 0 ORDER C-r i. ) i i CRLRC. No. 838 of 2024 ( I llii \* '\. ^l I .? ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE I . lt
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.