Syed Ishtiyaq Ali vs The State of Telangana Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — CRLP/3610/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HBHC010146942025

Filing Number

CRLP/4103/2025

Filing Date

10-Mar-2025

Registration No

CRLP/3610/2025

Registration Date

11-Mar-2025

Judge

J Sreenivas Rao

Coram

J Sreenivas Rao

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRLP ( 41 )

Sub-Category

U/s.482 Cr.p.c Quash the proceedings U/s.498-A I.P.C ( 65 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL Section

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 19-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Syed Ishtiyaq Ali

    Adv. MOHAMMAD ADNAN

  2. 2.Smt Shazia

  3. 3.Sri Afhhiya

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Telangana Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

  2. 2.Smt Khatija

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    J Sreenivas RaoView PDF

    Summary: The Telangana High Court quashed the cognizance order (CC No. 183 of 2024) passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate against three accused persons charged under IPC sections 498-A, 406, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3-4, finding that the Magistrate took cognizance without recording satisfaction, assigning reasons, or applying judicial mind as mandated by Supreme Court precedent. However, the court permitted the Magistrate to retake cognizance and issue fresh orders in accordance with law while providing proper reasoning. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    For Extension Of Interim Orders

    J Sreenivas Rao

  4. 13-Feb-2026

    J Sreenivas RaoView PDF

  5. 06-Feb-2026

    For Extension Of Interim Orders

    Tirumala Devi Eada

  6. 23-Jan-2026

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  7. 23-Jan-2026

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  8. 23-Jan-2026

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  9. 21-Jan-2026

    For Extension Of Interim Orders

    K. Sujana

  10. 17-Dec-2025

    K. SujanaView PDF

  11. 12-Dec-2025

    For Extension Of Interim Orders

    Tirumala Devi Eada

  12. 24-Nov-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  13. 21-Nov-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  14. 21-Nov-2025

    For Extension Of Interim Orders

    Tirumala Devi Eada

  15. 17-Oct-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  16. 17-Oct-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  17. 14-Oct-2025

    For Extension Of Interim Orders

    Tirumala Devi Eada

  18. 23-Sep-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  19. 23-Sep-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  20. 23-Sep-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  21. 11-Sep-2025

    For Extension Of Interim Orders

    Tirumala Devi Eada

  22. 28-Aug-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  23. 28-Aug-2025

    For Extension Of Interim Orders

    Tirumala Devi Eada

  24. 14-Aug-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  25. 14-Aug-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  26. 14-Aug-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  27. 14-Aug-2025

    Tirumala Devi EadaView PDF

  28. 14-Aug-2025

    For Extension Of Interim Orders (Afternoon)

    N.tukaramji

  29. 26-Jun-2025

    N.tukaramjiView PDF

  30. 26-Jun-2025

    Admission

    N.tukaramji

  31. 28-Apr-2025

    For Admission

    N.tukaramji

  32. 24-Apr-2025

    N.tukaramjiView PDF

  33. 17-Mar-2025

    N.tukaramjiView PDF

  34. 17-Mar-2025

    N.tukaramjiView PDF

  35. 17-Mar-2025

    For Admission

    N.tukaramji

  36. 13-Mar-2025

    For Admission

    N.tukaramji

  37. 12-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 10-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRLP/3610/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Telangana High Court quashed the cognizance order (CC No. 183 of 2024) passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate against three accused persons charged under IPC sections 498-A, 406, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3-4, finding that the Magistrate took cognizance without recording satisfaction, assigning reasons, or applying judicial mind as mandated by Supreme Court precedent. However, the court permitted the Magistrate to retake cognizance and issue fresh orders in accordance with law while providing proper reasoning. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case