HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA *****

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2761 of 2022 Between:

Lateef Mohammed Khan ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents DATE OF ORDER: 24^th September, 2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No the Judgment?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Yes/No Reporters/Journals

3 Whether HER Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No ___________________

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J * THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI + Criminal Petition No.2761 of 2022 % Date: 24^th September, 2025 Between:

Lateef Mohammed Khan ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mohammed Ismail Khan ! Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1-State: Smt.S.Madhavi ! Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. 1988 AIR 257 = 1988 SCR (1) 450

2. 2024 INSC 967

3. (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 695 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2761 of 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner–de facto complainant assailing the order dated 24.09.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.23 of 2019 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short “the Revisional Court”), whereby the order dated 30.09.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.733 of 2019 in Crime No.19 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad (for short “the Magistrate”), taking cognizance against respondent Nos.2 and 3, was set aside. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the Revisional Court and prays that accused Nos.1 and 2 be committed to trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

02. Heard Sri Mohammed Ismail Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Mrs. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material record.

03. On the intervening night of 20/21.05.2003, while the respondent No.3 and other police personnel were on patrolling duty in Zaheerabad, they were informed that thieves had entered certain shops. On proceeding to the spot, two persons were seen fleeing. On entry into Rose Confectionary and Kirana General Stores, an altercation occurred. It is alleged that one of the offenders the deceased Mohd. Shafi snatched hold of respondent No.3, stabbed him, snatched his rifle and pointed it at him. Respondent No.2 (a police officer) is said to have fired four rounds, resulting in the death of the deceased. Initially, the Crime No.71 of 2003 was registered and investigations were carried out. Postmortem report attributed death to multiple bullet injuries. A Magisterial Enquiry conducted by the Collector and District Magistrate, Medak vide report dated 30.09.2004 recorded that the firing by the respondent No.2 was in protection of life and justified and not excessive.

04. Subsequently, on a complaint/protest by an NGO and later on protest by the present petitioner, CB-CID took up investigation in Crime No.19 of 2008. The CB-CID final report recorded that the action was to be treated as ‘action dropped’ on the ground that the firing was an act of private defence falling within the ambit of Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate, who on consideration of the protest petition took cognizance by order dated 30.09.2019 and directed issue of process. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which was allowed by the Revisional Court by order dated 24.09.2021 setting aside the Magistrate’s order. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Revis