Gafaruddin@ Shoeb v. HYderabad'
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
CRTMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 420
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. The 2. The 3. One A. Two ls. rwo BJLB I HIGH COURT DATEb:18 t0812025 t.) j ? i.ii $ t- J>( ?0f -4 .:( Pa.teaeo ORDER CRLP.No.2O43 ot 2022 CRTMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED AS TNFRUCTUOUS rN'
Judgment
Cause title
2. R Srinivas, S/o Suresh, aged about 23 years, Security Guard Rlo 3-72, Raidurgam, Near Bharatiya Yuvajanasangam, Cyberabad, T.S. ...RESP.NDENT ...RESPONDENT
No.2/COMPLAINANT 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 Quash the FIR/ Crime. No.666 of 2020 dated 1810712020 on the file of Cyber Crime Police station, Cyberabad for the offences under section 420 lPC, Sec 66-C, 66-D ITA-2000-2008. l.A. NO: 2OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay on arrest including the Petitioners Transfer Warrant dated 0811112021 in FIR/ Crime. No.666 of 2020 dated 1810712020 pending on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad for the offence under section 420 lPC, Sec 66-C, 66-D rTA-2000-2008. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of
Sri M. Mehdi Hussain, Advocate for the Petitioners and Asst. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, and None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURBLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
ORDER:
This criminal petition has been filed under Section 4g2 of the code of criminal procedure, Lgr3, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.666 of 2o2o of cyber crime (cvb) police station, cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under section 420 of the Ipc and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technologr Act 2000_200g.
when the matter was taken up for consideration on 29.o4.2025, there was no representation on beharf of the petitioners and the matter was posted to 24.06.2025. once again, the matter was listed on 26.o6.2o2s and on that day also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and posted to 17.o7.2025- on 1T -or.2o2s also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and again the matter was posted to 18.08.2025. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, either physically or virtually.
During the course of hearing, rearned Assistant pubric Prosecutor, basing upon the instructions furnished by the concerned officer, submitted that the Investigating officer after conducting investigation filed the charge sheet before the x Additional Judicial Magistrate of First crass, Ranga Reddy \ t \ \ i I I \ 2 District at Kukatpally, and the said Court has taken cognizance and numbered it as C.C.No.6767 of 2022. By virtue of the same, the cause in the criminal petition does not survive for consideration.
Recording the above said submission, the criminal petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioners are granted liberty to avail the remedies as available under law, if so they are aggrieved. Miscellaneous applications, pending if &flY, shall stand closed. SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ON OFFICER r at Hyderabad [OUT] frII To,
Operative part
The 2. The 3. One A. Two ls. rwo BJLB I HIGH COURT DATEb:18 t0812025 t.) j ? i.ii $ t- J>( ?0f -4 .:( Pa.teaeo ORDER CRLP.No.2O43 ot 2022 CRTMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED AS TNFRUCTUOUS rN'
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: CRTMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.