Dismissed

Mr.Althi Veerendra Nath v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022WP/3742/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as infructuous. The Government Pleader submitted that the parties had settled the matter before Lok Adalat, leading to the closure of the charge sheet, thereby defeating the petition's purpose of quashing the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous due to settlement and closure of criminal proceedings before Lok Adalat.

Mr.Althi Veerendra Nath Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S' rsp""i, IA,I5 ;Si i:,.,l3j|f,ili^{Ar HYDE RABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY,THE^- ,*o in o rlXr'il-.o, il,H,if Y oF AP R r L

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:3 742 0F2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

y,{*',Hi,J,r",",i:[gl,r],fjli

¶8

f_i?r3[z:i?,j,.oTfl"i"r"n"r:r33:,Hr3i nl,?xi?ofoi"

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

, il?I"^^:f Tetangana, r9p by its prrncipal Secrr Telangana secr"etariit, tlyoerabad-soo 022 3tary to Govt.Home Dept.,

¶12

The Director General of police, Telangana State, Saiflabad, Hyderabad_4

¶13

The Commissioner of police, Ratchakonda, Gatchbowli, Hyderabad.

¶14

[ilrt#lrljs, ]fi $3i;,|.?Ji',ion^{House offricer,Khushaisuda,porice} station,

¶15

The Station House Officer, Ir,/ahila police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶16

USS#:n'"oJIJft iMl,t,"i:J:fi %3)ff :,f:;i,3lnlTf^{,.Hitios:B,5tt.%,8}

¶17

¶18

Gundugulla Subrahmanyei;yarg. Rao, S/o. Madhava Rao, aged about 52 years. Occ. LIC Aoent,' R/o. H.No.1_10_28/1ii, frfagarjunl ti;;r; ffi;"y, Khushaiguda, RangI neooy Distiict.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High - cJurt may be pleased to issue an order or writ more particularly, writ of ti/andamous decliring the acts of the 4th Respondent herein i) Registering the crime without issuing sec.41 A cr.PC.,Notice to the petitioner, ii; Registering the crime without conducting preliminary investigation as per the guidelines of Hon,ble supreme court Registering the crime without territorial jurisdiction, iv) Taking into cognizance of the offence by the Hon'ble court etc. as illegal and arbitraiy and consequently QUASH THE FtR No.742li, dt. 9.10.2018 pending on the iile of the Hon'ble XIX Addl.tt/letropolitan Magistrate, Malkalgiri.

¶21

¶22

¶23

lA No:^{1 oF 2019} ^^a ^'^'r in ^^{thatin the circumstances statedin} Petition^{underSection 151 CPC praygthat} the^{affidavittiteO in suppolof the petitlon' the High Court may be pleasedto stay} of all^{furtherp'o"""Oing" iJnd'nn on the file of the Hon'ble XIX Addl Metrpolitan} Magistrate,^{trlalkajgiri'}

¶24

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI'P VIJAY KUMAR}

¶25

Counsel^{for the Respondentsi GP FOR HOME}

¶26

The^{Courtmade the following: ORDER}

¶27

t L

¶28

I /

¶29

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE^D.NAGARJUN

¶30

wRlT PottrIoN no.g742^o

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

No representation on behalf^{of the petitioner.}

¶33

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home has} submitted that subsequent^{to the filing of the Criminal Petition,} as there were no stay^{orders granted by this Court, the Police} have completed investigation^{and also filedcharge sheet and to} that extent he has liled^{copy of the charge sheet and also the} written instructions of the^{Inspector of Police, Kushaiguda} Poiice Station, which^{discloses that Policehave completed} investigation and filed^{charge sheet, which was numbered as} C.C.No. 1499 of 2019 on^{the file of XIX Additional Metropolitan} Magistrate, Rachakonda^{at Malkajgiri and thereafter the parties} have settled the^{matterbeforeI-ok Adalat on 27 'O2 '2020 and} thereby C.C.No.1499^{of 2019 was closed'}

¶34

3.Inviewoftheabovesubmission,theverypurposeoffiling the Writ^{Petition seekingquash of the FIR in Crime No'742of} 2018 of^{KushaigudaPolice Station is defeated'}

¶35

¶36

Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed as inlructuous

¶37

There is no order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶39

shall stand closed

¶40

¶41

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

L_U)

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRl.^{P VIJAY KUMAR, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶47

Two CCs to GP FOR^{HOME, High Court for the Stateof Telangana, At} Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶48

Two CD Copies

¶49

One Spare Copy.

GJP

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2810412022

ORDER

WP.No.37 42 of 2019

1HE S14
o lq-
t\
Ilo 13 iljl 2022
\.., hc
Y,, .ltj
.. * -
' SPATCK.

¶56

DISMISSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶57

WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

Mr.Althi Veerendra Nath v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Althi Veerendra Nath v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yadagiri Tadem Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Surukunta Sai Reddy alias S.Sai Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Begari , Avula Shyam Vs The State of Telangana

K.R.Janardhan Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Are Subhash Goud , Are Subhash Vs M/S.Lucky Restaurant and Anr.

Abdul Bari Vs Smt Nazia Begam and 2 Others