LawSphereX

MOHAMMED ZAMIRUDDIN MADANI 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 2026-04-20. MOHAMMED ZAMIRUDDIN MADANI v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on...

Judgment text

[ 33031 tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO cRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1263 OF 2026 Between: MOHAMMED ZAMIRUDDIN MADANI, S/o Mohammed Ameeruddin, Aged '17-34-210, about 39 years, Occupation Service abroad, H. No S R. T Colony, Yakutpura. Charminar, Hyderabad, Telangana Presently residing at Muhammed bin lt/uslimah Al Ansari, Al Malaz. Riyadh, K. S. A Rep by his G. P. A Holder Niyaz Mohammed Khan Durrani S/o Late lqbal Mohd. Khan Durrani, Aged about 40 years, Occupation Pvt. Service, H No. 1B-12- 4191Ct1263, C-Block, Hafiz Baba Nagar, Bandlaguda, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad 500058, Telangana. Represented by his GPA Holders Niyaz Mohammed Durrani as per Court Order dated 18-02-2026 Vide lA No. 212026 in Cnp12631202O. .. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 1.

The State of Telangana,, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana 2- Afshan Nazneen Farha, Wo Mohammed lmran Khan, Aged about 36 years, Occupation Housewife, H. No. 9-3-58/8132 and 33/2 (Ground Floor) Afsar Khan Colony, Langer House, Hyderabad 500008, Telangana ... RESPONDENTS 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 tot call for the records relating to and rn connection with and quash set aside the order dated 19/09/2025 passed in Crl. M. P No. 3815 ol 2025 in C. C. No. 12214of 2019on the file of the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, and permit the petitioner to record the statement u/sec 313 Cr. P. C through video conferencing l. A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS pr?

yrng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stayall further proceedings of CC No 12214 of 20'19 on thefileof the XVAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hyderabad at Nampally. pending drsposal of the Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHD ASHFAQ , Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr V. Jithender Rao Addl Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1 . and none appear for the Respondent No2. 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 PETITIO N No. 1263 of2026 Da te:20. o,4. 2o26 Between Mohammed Zamiruddin Madani .. Petitione r/ Accused No. L AND The State of Telangana and another responden ! s ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated lg. Og.

2}25 passed by the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, in Crl'M P' No. 3815 of 2025 in C. C. No. l22l4 ol 2019, where under the application hled by the petitioner along with other accused seeking permission to appear through video conference was dismissed. 2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Ashfaq, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr- Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1. 3. When this matter was taken up for consideration on 18. 02. 2026, this Court, while ordering notice before admission permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out personal notice to respondent No. 2 through speed post with acknowledgmcnt due and frle proof of service. Pursuant to the said order, Iearned counsel ior the petitioner filed proof of scrvicc statrng that though he sent personal notice to the correct address of respondent No_2 and it was returned with a postal endorsement as'no such person in the said address'. 4.

[n view of the above said submission, this Court has clirected the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to inform the concerned Station House Oflrcer (S. H O. ) to serve notice to respondent No. 2 and hle proof of service. The matter underwent anothcr two adjournments i. e. 23. 03. 2026 and 06. 04_2026 at thc instance of the learncd Additional Public Prosecutor. Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed Memo urde USR No. 37622 of 2026 along with written instructions furnished by thc S. H. O. , W. P. S. , South Charminar, Hyderabad, wherein it is stated that rhe S. H. O. , W. P. S. , South Charminar, Hydcrabad, deputed a Police Constable to serve the notice to the complainant and on enquiry, he came to know that respondent No. 2 has vacated the said house in the year 20 19. Taking into consideration the above said submissions, especially the petitioner is only seeking permission to appear througlt video conference, thrs Court is proceeding w-ith the matter on merits. ti 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No. I in C'C No 12214 of 2019, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 arrd 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196t and he is temporarily residing at Soudi Arabia due to his employment and the matter before the trial Court is coming up for examination of the accused The petitioner filed an application uide Crl. M. P. No. 3815 of 2025 invoking the provisions of Rule 6 of Rules for Video Conlerencing for Courts in the State of Telangana uide Notihcation No. I4/SO/2020 seeking permission to appear through video conference The trial Court, without properly considering the averments made in the application' erroneously dismissed the same. Unle ss this Court permits the petitioner to appear through video conference, he will be put to great hardshiP. 6.

He further submitted that the matter before the trial Court is coming up for framing of charges and the physical presence of the petitioner may be dispensed and the petitioner witl appear through video conference. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the same. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective p:rrties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner liled Crl. M. p. No. 3glS of 2025 invoking tl-re provisions of Rule 6 of Rules lor Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Telangana seeking permission to appear through video conference at the time of framing of charges. The trial Court dismissed the same only on the ground that the matter belore the trial Court is coming up for examination of the accused under Section 239 of Cr_p. C.

and the Rulcs framed by the High Court does not expressively state about [he proceedings through video conference facility at the time ol examination of the accused under Section 239 of Cr. P. C. , however, the same is available at the stage ol cxamination of thc accused under Section 313 of Cr. p. C_ and for rccordrng thc evidence of witness. 9. On perusal of the Rules framed for Video Conferencing for Courts in tl-re State of Telangana, under Memo No. 8694lCourLs. A2 /2O2O (Home (Courrs. A), 2grh Octobcr, 2O2O, it reveals that Rule No. 3 of General principles Governing Video Conferencing envisages that video conference should be used at all stages of judicial proceedings including the proceedingp, -eonducted by the trial Court. The record at Soudi Arabia due to discloses that the petitioner is residing his emploYment. the peculiar facts and 10.

Taking into consideration directed to permit the circumstances, the trial Court is stage of video conference at the petitioner to appear through framing of charges. is disposed of 11 Accordingly, the criminal petition applications, if any' shall stand Pending miscellaneous closed . SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally 2. One CC to SRl. MOHD ASHFAQ Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTj 4. Two CD Copies W AC/KA =rt HIGH COURT DATED: 2010412026 . 1 rl c v ,$* * t') fi =*o r-1_ + i,'-1. ( ORDER \,ijlli l. . CRLP. No. 1263 ot 2026 DISPOSING THE GRLP @l q Tru

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.