Shaik Amar 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 2026-01-06. Shaik Amar v. The State of Telangana and another. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
3303 ] [ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIM INAL PETITION NO: 7206 OF 2020 Between: years, Shaik Amar, S/o Late Khaja Pasha Aged about 52 Occ Business Fi/o district H. No. 24-5-99, Fathimanagar Darga Kazipet, Warangal Urban Petitioner/Accused No. 6 AND '1 Station . The State of Telangana rep by its Public Prosecutor Through Police WPS, Warangal City High Court of Judicature of Telangana at Hyderabad' 2. Banoth Angothu Vanaja, W/o Keval Ram Aged about 35 years, Occ. @ Urban Housewiie R/o H. No. 24-5-109, Fathima Nagar Kazipet, Warangal District ... Respondents praying that in circumstances Petition under section 482 of cr. P. c the Petition, the High court may be stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Judicial pleased to quash the c. c. No.
35 41 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional First Class Magistrate at Warangal against the petitioner/ Accused No. 6 in the interest of iustice. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2020 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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/ Accused No. 6 in C. C. No. 3541 of 20'19 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at warangal pending disposal of the petition in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of MS. N Kamala ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri tvl vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of sri V Aditya representing Sri V Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE ( F TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SF:, }ENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 72O6 ol2O2O Date:O6. O7. 2026 Between: Shaik Amar. ... Petitione r/Accused No. 6 AND The State of Telalgana, represented by its Pubiic Prosecutor, through Police Station WPS, Warangat City, High Court of Judicature of Telangana at Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed sr eking to quash the proceedings in C. C. No-3541 of 2C^79 on the hle of learned V Additional Judicial First Clasr; Magistrate at Warangal, wherein the petitioner was arra r ed as accused No. 6 for the offence pr-rnishable under Sec t on 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IpC). I I 2. Heard Ms. N. Kamala, learned cor-rnsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Aditya, learned counsel, representing Mr. M. V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for iespondent No. 2, and Mr.. M.
Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the petitioner has not cornrnitted the alleged offence and he was falsely irnplicated ln the present case only on the ground that he is close friend of tlre accused No. 1. He further subrnitted ttrat there are no allegations muchless specific allegations against the petitioner to attract the ingredients for the offence r. rnder Section 5O6 of the IPC. Tkre entire allegations are Ievelled against accused Nos. 1 to 5 only. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, that he and accused Nos. l to 5 harassed respondent No. 2 and also there is specific allegation made by respondent No. 2 is that accused Nos.
l to 5 with the assistance of the petitioner tterein threaten to kill trer. Hence, the ingredients of the offence uncle I Section 5O6 of the IPC ilre attracted against the petitio I :r. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or n( t, the same has to be revealed after full- fledged trial befo r the trial Court. Basing on the grounds raised by the learnr, counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to s eek qr-ashing of the proceedings. Hence, the Criminal petir r n is Iiable to be disrnissed. 5. Learned Assistant Public prosecuto . also reiterated the subrnissions made by , the learn, I counsel for respondent No. 2 6. Having considered the rival submissio rs made by the respective parties and after perusal of the nr rterial available on record, it reveals that basing on the corr r,laint iodged by respondent No. 2 Crirne No. 142 of 2Ol9 was registered against accused Nos. 1 to 6 and the Invc. .
igation Oflicer after recorcling the statements of the witnt sses filed fina1 report on 28. 1O. 2019 and the learned Magi; rate has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections , )gA and 5O6 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of i Dowry rohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act) against accused I os. l to 5 and -- c'q \ also taken cognizance for the offence under Section 5O6 of the IPC against the petitioner/ accused No. 6 7. Upon perr-rsal of the complaint as well as the final report, it is revealed that there are no specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner and the only allegation rnade against the petitioner is that accused Nos. 1 to 5 are threatening to kill her with the assistance of the accused No. 6 and he along with other accused stated that the respondent No. 2 is not having good character. The entire allegations about the demand of additional dowry and harassment against other accused and the petitioner is not a farnily rnember and he is friend of accused No. 1.
The allegations made in the complaint as well as frnal report the ingredients for tlre offence r. rnder Section 506 of the IPC is not attracted against the petitioner. 8. It is pertinent to mention that in State of llarydna Vs. Bhajan Lal1, the Hon''ble Apex Court, after reviewing the relevant provisions of the Cr. P. C and earlier precedents on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C and extraordinary jurisdiction 'r. nder Article 226, identifred illustrative categories of cases in which conrts (1992) 1 scc 33s rnay justif,rably intervene to prevent abLlse lf process or to secure the ends of justice. These include sir rations where: (i) Even accepting the FIR or cornplrr nt at face vair.
e, no offence is disclosed;i (ii) The FIR and accornpanying matt ial do not reveal a cognizable offence warrar,'1 ,ng police investigation; (iii) Uncontroverted allegations and ;upporting rnaterial fail to establish any offence; (iv) The allegations disclose only a norL cognizable offence, attraiting the bar under Sec ion 155(2) Cr. P. C; (v) The accusations are abstr. rd or inherently irnprobable; (vi) there exists a legal rar to the proceedings or an efficaciolrs statLrtor! rerledy is available; and (vii) The proceedings are tainted witt rnala fides \ or instituted rnalicior-rsly to wreak 't,t rgeance or set t le personal scores. 9. It is also relevant to lnention that in I iedda nt Jha,rr,si u. Sta-te of Telanga. tta.
2, the Hon'1cle Ape;< Court kreld that in offences under Sections +98 A, 506 IP(l Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, inr rLicating distant relatives of her husband by making ornrL bus allegations, w-ithout any specilic overt acts, resting rr r rely on hearsay evidence; contimrance of the proceedings is abuse of the process of law. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 '? 1O. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'lcle Apex Court in Bha. jan Lal and Jha. nsi Supra, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. In the result, the crirninal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/ accr. rsed No. 6 in C. C. No. 3541 of 2019, on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. S.
MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI ON OFFICER To, 1. The V Additional Judicial First Class [\/agistrate at Warangal 2. The Station House Officer, WPS 1 , Warangal 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 4. One CC to MS. N KAMALA' Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0610112026 I 1'a.. r,. rli? i\ -- ! )" o () 2 li,7! 7ti ORDER 11 * * CRLP. No. 7206 o12020 t)a . . i' lprire,tf-o ALLOWING THE CRLP KS zol,f ea
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.