Telangana High Court
Mir Qayam Ali Abedi vs The State Of Telangana on 12 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11726 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.1189 of 2019 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 380 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police stating that in the month of April, 2011 with a view to keep his electronic goods articles in a rental house, he made an agreement with one Mir Mustafa Ali for monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. Later, Mir Mustafa provided one hall on the upstairs of his house, and the same is using as Godown. As an electronic trader he used to purchase the electronic items and keep that it in the Godown. On 18.03.2012, he kept the electronic items in the godown and locked. On 13.06.2012, when the de facto complainant along with his managers Mohammed Imran and Mohammed Arshed went to godown, found that the godown doors were already opened. Later, it is alleged that the above said items were stolen by Mir Mustafa 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11726 OF 2023 Ali, his sons Mir Hussain Ali and Mir Qayam Ali and the same have been sold to his relatives and friends. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.182 of 2012 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.295 of 2013, on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metroplitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. After completion of full-fledged trial, accused No.1 was acquitted. Due to health issues, the petitioner/accused No.2, could not able to appear before the trial Court. Hence, the trial Court has issued N.B.W against him. Thereafter, the case was split up against the petitioner and renumbered as C.C.No.1189 of 2019, on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Hence, the present Criminal Petition.
3. Heard Sri Mohammed Zaki, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice was served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence against accused No.1 who is the main accused and after full-fledged trial, he was acquitted. He further submitted that even if the trial is conducted, no purpose would be served, as such, 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11726 OF 2023 prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though the case was ended in acquittal against accused No.1, the petitioner/accused No.2 has to appear before the trial Court and face the trial and therefore, the same will be decided by the trial Court.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it appears that the trial Court has examined P.W.1, who even in his evidence did not mention about the accused committing the offence and since the allegation against the accused has not found to be established, has acquitted the main accused in C.C.No.295 of 2013. Though there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, this Court has relies upon the judgments in Pothula Suresh vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1 and Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 2, wherein it is observed that when some of the accused in the same case found not guilty and are acquitted after full-fledged trial, the proceedings against the other accused are liable to be quashed. 1 2011 Crl.L.J. 609 2 (2018) 11 SCC 570 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11726 OF 2023
7. In the present case also, accused No.1 was acquitted after full-fledged trial in C.C.No.295 of 2013. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.1189 of 2019 against the petitioner/accused No.2 are also liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.1189 of 2019 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 12 .03.2024
SAI