Telangana High Court
Mohammed Taj vs State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
***
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7332 OF 2024
Between:
1. Mohammed Taj, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf, Age: 31 years, Occu:
Private Employee, (Aadhar Card No. 5218 7062 4244);
2. Mohammed Arshad, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf, Age: 38 years,
Occu: Private Employee, (Aadhar Card No. 3637 8033 3104)
3. Mohammed Siraj Adil, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf, Age: 31 years,
Occu: Private Employee, (Aadhar Card No. 2297 6710 0846)
All are R/o. H.No. 8-4-69/9/E/NP Backside of Anomol Garden
Function Hall, Ahmed Nagar Colony, Keshavgiri, Bandlaguda,
Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
Petitioners
and
1. State of Telangana, through Station House Officer, P.S.
Mailardevapally, Ranga Reddy, Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.
Respondent No.1
2. Abdul Kader Hussain, S/o. Goolam Nabee Hussain, Aged about 66
years, Occu: Business, R/o. South Africa, Represented by its General
Power of Attorney Mir Wajid Hussain, S/o. Mir Sadiq Hussain, Aged
about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 6-3-663/20, Jaffar Ali Bagh,
Somajiguda, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. Ph: 9989262636
Respondent No.2/Defacto complainant
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 15.04.2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
2
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 7332 of 2024
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7332 OF 2024
% 15.04.2026
# Between:
1. Mohammed Taj, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf, Age: 31 years, Occu:
Private Employee, (Aadhar Card No. 5218 7062 4244);
2. Mohammed Arshad, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf, Age: 38 years,
Occu: Private Employee, (Aadhar Card No. 3637 8033 3104)
3. Mohammed Siraj Adil, S/o. Late Mohammed Yousuf, Age: 31 years,
Occu: Private Employee, (Aadhar Card No. 2297 6710 0846)
All are R/o. H.No. 8-4-69/9/E/NP Backside of Anomol Garden
Function Hall, Ahmed Nagar Colony, Keshavgiri, Bandlaguda,
Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
Petitioners
and
1. State of Telangana, through Station House Officer, P.S.
Mailardevapally, Ranga Reddy, Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.
Respondent No.1
2. Abdul Kader Hussain, S/o. Goolam Nabee Hussain, Aged about 66
years, Occu: Business, R/o. South Africa, Represented by its General
Power of Attorney Mir Wajid Hussain, S/o. Mir Sadiq Hussain, Aged
about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 6-3-663/20, Jaffar Ali Bagh,
Somajiguda, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. Ph: 9989262636
Respondent No.2/Defacto complainant
! Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. T.K. Sreedhar,
Learned counsel for the petitioners.
^Counsel for respondents : Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for
respondent No.1/State;
Mr. Rizwah Ali, learned counsel,
representing Mr. M.A. Qavi Abbasi, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287;
Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC 639;
T. Kamalakar v. State of Telangana.
3
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 7332 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7332 OF 2024
DATE: 15.04.2026
Between :
Mohammed Taj and two others
... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3.
AND
State of Telangana, through Station House Officer, P.S.
Mailardevapally, Ranga Reddy, Represented by Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, and
another.
... Respondents.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking quashment of the order
dated 15.04.2024 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 413 of 2023 in C.C. No. 2563 of
2012, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the petition filed under
Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the petitioners. Consequently,
the petitioners seek quashment of proceedings in C.C. No. 2563 of 2022
pending on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at
Rajendranagar.
4
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 7332 of 2024
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 and are
charged with offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, and 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3.1. A private complaint dated 19.03.2019 was filed by respondent No.
2 through his General Power of Attorney holder under Section 200
Cr.P.C., alleging that the father of the petitioners received an amount of
Rs. 65,00,000/- for construction of a Chilla/Madrasa but misappropriated
the same for purchase of property. Pursuant thereto, the police registered
a case, conducted investigation, and filed a charge sheet under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C., resulting in registration of C.C. No. 2563 of 2022.
3.2. The petitioners filed a discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C.,
which came to be dismissed by the trial Court, leading to the present
petition.
4.1. Submissions of the Petitioners: Learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of
offences under Sections 420, 406, or 506 IPC; that there is no material to
establish dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction; that the
complaint is vitiated due to non compliance with Sections 154(1), 154(3),
and 156(3) Cr.P.C., particularly the absence of a sworn affidavit; that the
5
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 7332 of 2024
Magistrate mechanically referred the complaint without application of
mind.
4.2. Reliance is placed on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287; Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka,
(2022) 5 SCC 639; and T. Kamalakar v. State of Telangana, of this court
in Criminal petition No.759 of 2016 dated 01.04.2022.
5. Submissions of the Respondent No.2: Learned counsel for the
de facto complainant submits that the complainant entrusted substantial
funds for construction of a religious and charitable institution; That the
accused, by inducement, diverted the funds for personal gain; That there
was misappropriation and subsequent criminal intimidation; That the
allegations disclose a prima facie case and involve disputed questions of
fact requiring trial.
6. In the above factual and legal backdrop, the following issues arise
for consideration:
(i) Whether the allegations and material on record disclose a prima facie
case for the offences alleged?
(ii) Whether non-compliance with procedural safeguards under Sections
154 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. vitiates the proceedings?
6
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 7332 of 2024
(iii) Whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
7. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled.
At the stage of quashment, the Court is required to examine whether the
material on record, taken at face value and accepted in its entirety,
discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences. A meticulous
appreciation of evidence is impermissible at this stage. Further, in
Priyanka Srivastava (supra) and Babu Venkatesh (supra), it was held that
applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must be supported by a sworn
affidavit and must disclose prior compliance with Section 154 Cr.P.C.
8. Analysis and Findings: A perusal of the complaint and the charge
sheet indicates specific allegations of entrustment of funds, inducement
for construction of a religious institution, diversion of funds for personal
use, and issuance of threats to the complainant. If these allegations are
taken at face value, they prima facie satisfy the ingredients of offences
under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC. Whether such allegations are
ultimately proved is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated at this
stage.
7
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 7332 of 2024
9. It is no doubt true that the complaint does not strictly comply with
the requirements under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., particularly with regard to
the filing of a sworn affidavit and prior recourse under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
However, upon a careful consideration of the legal position emerging from
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and
Babu Venkatesh, this Court is of the considered view that the dicta
therein do not mandate the automatic dismissal of a complaint after
cognizance has already been taken merely on account of non-compliance
with the affidavit requirement under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Pertinently,
the requirements prescribed in the aforesaid judgments are mandatory in
nature and are intended to operate as safeguards against the frivolous
and vexatious invocation of criminal jurisdiction. Their object is to instill a
sense of responsibility in the complainant and to ensure that the
Magistrate exercises jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with due
application of mind at the pre-cognizance stage.
10. However, a holistic reading of the aforesaid precedents does not
support the proposition that every infraction of such procedural
requirements would, as an inexorable rule, vitiate the entire criminal
proceedings irrespective of the stage at which the defect is noticed. The
dictum in Priyanka Srivastava is primarily directed at regulating the
exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrate at the threshold stage. In Babu
8
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 7332 of 2024
Venkatesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the peculiar facts of that case,
found that the absence of an affidavit, coupled with lack of application of
mind and apparent abuse of process, warranted quashing of the
proceedings. The said decision, therefore, cannot be construed as laying
down an inflexible rule of universal application.
11. It is trite that procedural prescriptions, though mandatory in form,
are not invariably fatal in consequence unless prejudice or miscarriage of
justice is demonstrated. Once the criminal law has been set in motion,
investigation has been completed, and a charge sheet has been filed
disclosing prima facie material, the proceedings enter a distinct stage
where the Court is required to examine the substance of the allegations
rather than procedural irregularities at inception. In such circumstances,
non-compliance with the requirement of filing an affidavit or prior recourse
under Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not ipso facto render the proceedings
void ab initio, particularly when cognizance has already been taken and
the matter is at the stage of trial.
12. The distinction between jurisdictional illegality and procedural
irregularity is of considerable significance. While the former strikes at the
root of the proceedings, the latter is curable and must be assessed on the
touchstone of prejudice and abuse of process. To hold otherwise would
9
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 7332 of 2024
elevate procedural form over substantive justice and would run contrary
to the settled principle that the acts or omissions of the Court should not
prejudice a litigant.
13. Therefore, the legal position that emerges is that non-compliance
with the requirements under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may justify
interference at the nascent stage when the Magistrate’s order is under
scrutiny. However, once the proceedings have progressed and disclose a
prima facie case, such irregularity, by itself, cannot be a ground to quash
the prosecution unless it is shown that the same has resulted in abuse of
process or failure of justice.
14. In the instant case, the investigation has been completed, a charge
sheet has been filed, and cognizance has been taken by the learned
Magistrate. At this advanced stage, the absence of an affidavit cannot be
said to vitiate the entire proceedings.
15. Additionally, it is a settled principle that the acts of the Court should
not prejudice a litigant. If the Magistrate failed to insist upon strict
procedural compliance, the complainant cannot be penalized by quashing
the prosecution at a later stage. Where the complaint discloses a prima
facie offence and the investigation have culminated in a charge sheet,
10
NTR,J
Crl.P. No. 7332 of 2024
quashing the proceedings on technical grounds would defeat substantive
justice.
16. In this view, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material
on record discloses a prima facie case; the issues raised involve disputed
questions of fact; and the procedural irregularities, if any, do not vitiate
the proceedings at this stage.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The proceedings in
C.C. No. 2563 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned I Additional
Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga
Reddy District at Rajendranagar shall continue in accordance with law.
18. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the trial
Court in adjudicating the matter on merits.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 15.04.2026
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.
svl