The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a biased police investigation as infructuous, noting the counsel's submission that the issues no longer required adjudication.
None granted; the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION NO: 38502 OF 2014
Between:
Anil, Kumar Denduluri, S/o. Sri.D.Sivaramakrishna, Aged about 34 vears. Occ: Project Manager in Tech Mahindra Company, No. 5-244,prakruthi Nivas, Annaram Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak Districi.
..,PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in conducting biased investigation into the FIR in Crime No.203/2014 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to transfer the FIR in Crime No.203/2014 from the respondent No.3 to any other police station in Hyderabad and Cyberabad limits.
WPMP. NO: 48197 OF 20'14
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to stay the investigation of the FIR in Crime No.203/2014 by the respondent No.3 pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S SRI RAM
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRl. V V RAGHAVAN
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following:
I
TIE HCN'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI
WRIT PETITION N 0.38502 ot2014
ORDER:
Leornecl counsel oppeoring for thepetitioner hod contended
lhot the cous= in the writpelilion does not survivefor odjudicotion
ond hos beccme infructuous
Recording the soid submission, the wrilpetitionis dismissedos
lnfruciuoLrs. N o costs,
Penc1in17 miscelloneouspetitions, if ony. sholl stond closed.
\
//TRUE COPY/i
SD/. T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Y..4
SECTION OFFICER
To,
PM TP \ },:
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2310812021
{Fi=
<br>f
:
)Jat
3 r sEPz0?l
I
+
,.,.-t.., , .
ORDER
WP.No.38502: of2014
DISMISSINGiTHE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.
{ .,' <br>Ia>-
arA q
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar Denduluri
The State of Telangana
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
