Mohd Shabbir 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 2026-04-30. Mohd Shabbir v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PET ITION NO: 6867 OF 2026 Between: 1. Mohd Shabbir, S/o Late Mohd Siddique Sab, Aged about. 60, Occ. lnspector of police CRPF R/O 18-2-431311511A, GM Colony, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. A-2 2 Razia Sultana, Wo Mohammed Abdul Nayeem Sab, Aged about. 55 years, Occ House Wife, R/o 18-2451N79, Ghazi-E- Millat Colony, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. A-3 3 Abdul Aleem, S/o Mohammed Abdul Nayeem, Aged about-27 years, OCC' Private Employee, R/o 18-2451N79, Ghazi-E- Millat Colony, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. A{ 4. Rehana Begum, W/o Abdul Samad, Aged about. 48 years, Occ. House Wife, Rlo 18-2451N79, Ghazi-E- Millat Colony, Chandrayangufta, Hyderabad. A-5 5. Tahmina Fatima, D/o Abdul Samad, Aged about. 24 Occ. House hold, R/o H. NO. 1B-1-356 / 55, Talla Kunta, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad A-7 6.
Umar Farooq, S/o Late Mohd Khaizer Ali Sab, Aged about. 37, Occ. Private employee, R/o H. No. 18-2451N201N1 , G M. Colony, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. A-8 7. Neha Fatima, Wo Mohammed Khaleel Siddiqui Aged about- 26 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o H. No. 18-2451N79, Ghazi-E- Millat Colony, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. A-9 ... Petitioners/Accused AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2 Afshan Jabeen, Wo Mohammed Khaleel Siddiqui, Aged about. 37, Occ. House wife, Rlo 18-2-45tN79, Ghazi-E- Millat Colony, Chandrayangutta. Hyderabad ... Respondents/ComPlainants ry Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of crimrnal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the rmpugned proceedrngs in FIR No. 84 ol 2026 on the file of the santosh Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. District. l. A.
NO: 2 OF 2026 Petitron 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in FIR No. 84 of 2026 on the file of the santosh Nagar Pohce Station, Hyderabad. This Petition comin(, on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Mirza Mahmood Alibaig, Advocate for the Petitroners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla Additional Publrc Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6867 of 2026 Date:30. 04. 2026 Between Mohd Shabbir and six others .. Petitioners AND The State ofTelangana and another ... Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 84 of 2026 of W?
S South Zone, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 9, for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 35 l(2) ol the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard Mr. Mirza Mahmood Ali Baig, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No. I State. - '2 3. With the consent of both the leamed counsel, the criminal petilion is disposed of at the admission stage. 4. l. eamed counscl lor the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present crime solely on the ground that they are fan-rily nrembcrs of accused No. l, by making omnibus allcgations. Respondent No.? herself left the matrimonial house of accused No. l in tlre nronth of February, 2026, and thereafter filed the prcsent complaint. Respondent No.
2 and accused No. I never lived with the petitioners. and the petilioners never harassed respondent No. I lor additional dorvry. E,ven according to the a[legations made in the conrplaint. the ingredicnts of Sections 85 and 35 l(2) of the BNS and Sections i and . { olthc DP Act, 1961 are not attracted against the petitioners. Flence. the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law. 4. 1 . I-le lurther subrnitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than seven years and the lnvestigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 (lor short. "BNSS''), as well as the guidetinqr. formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumor / / w v. Stale of Bihart, is proceeding with the matter, which is contrary to law. 5.
Per contra, the learned Additionat public prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners regarding harassment of respondent No. 2, including demands for additional dowry along with accused No. l, and statements of witnesses have already been recorded. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 3 5(3) of the BNSS. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on I record, it appears that the offences levelled against the petitioners ) are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
Even I according to the leamed Additional public prosecutor, the I investigation is under progress and the Investigating Officer intends to follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 35(3) of rhe BNSS. 7. Taking into consideration the above submissions. the Investigating Officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure I (2014) 8 scc 273 \ \ prescribed under the provisions ofsection 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issucd bv the Apex Court in Arnesh i(azar (supra). It is made clear thaL the are entitled l)etitioners to put forth their grievance after receiving notice under Section 35(3) olthe BNSS by raising all the grounds and submit the documents which are available with them to the Investigrling Officcr. 8. Accordingly. the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, il-any, shalt stand closed SD/.
C DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ To, \-/ 1 The XV Addrtronal Chief Metropolitan MagistrateX Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Offtcer, WPS South East Zone (Hyderabad), Hyderabad 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT) 4 One CC to Srr lvlirza Mahmood Alibaig, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Coptes DL/ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412026 $r{F" THE o R i4 o Y tt ,c (1. ORDER . J f_ la 5 ll AY ? n? . ) 0 ii : i' /st CRLP. No. 6867 of 20ZG * \r 4 Y DISPOSING OF THE CRTMINAL PETITION ah
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.