The High Court of Telangana dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The court, noting that the petitioner's counsel had submitted that the cause no longer survived, made no substantive order on the merits of the challenge against the registration of the case.
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.
[32e6 ]
\
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETHDAYOF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEC.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRlT PETITION NO: 18867 OF 2023
Between:
V.Vijayakanth Reddy, S/o Raghavendra leddy'A99 45 YF, -Occ: .Managing Oirettirr, O/o Pravasi Media LLP,Dwaraka Tridents, Kaveri Hills, Phase- ll, Doctors Colony, Madhapur, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article226 of the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filedtherewith,the High court maybe pleased to issue a writ, order or directionmore particularlyone in the nature of writ of tVlandamus declaringthe action of the Respondent No. 3 in registeringa case in crime No. 1632 of2023 in the absenceof prima facie material,at the instance of complainantandthreateningto seize the propertyof the Petitioner under theguise of enquirywithout following the dueprocessof law as illegal, corrupt, arbitrary, abuseof process of law and violation of article 14, 1 9(1 [a) and 21 of Constitution of lndiaconsequently, in view of Honble Apex Court Judgment, dated 29. 07. 1980passedin Municipal council,Ratlam vs Shrl Vardhichandand
J
,.I
'1 )a! ,tr ,l ,1 1 t,l .t .ol sl
ors (1981 scR (1) 97), direct the cBl to inquire into the matter as well as direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to take action against the Respondent No. 3 for registering a case in crime No. 1632 of 2023 in the absence of prima facie material, at the instance of complainant and threatening to seize the property of the Petitioner under the guise of enquiry without following the due process of law.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to appear before this Honble court personally along with records i.e., written summon mentioning the cSR number etc and minutes of the enquiry, call data of Respondent No. 3 etc as well as direct the Respondent No. 3 not to take any coercive action against either the petitioner or his channel until further orders of this Honble Court.
Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s.DR.D.V.RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: ASST. Gp FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.l 8867 of2023
ORDER:
l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tairly submitted that the cause in the writ petition no longer survives and l the writ petition has become infructuous.
J Miscellaneous petitions, if arry pending in this writ petition shatl stand closed.
\
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECT N OFFICER
To,
i. i*o bCi-to ASS1. cpFOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
BSK
GJ
$
_.:
, n
:l ll ll
HIGH COURT
DATED:20112t2023
ORDER
WP.No.188G7 of 2OZ3
1tr E STATF
2
a
co 2 2 JIN 202[ ,5
.-
Dssp,atC
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
@)ffi 9:c-Ar'+
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Shri Vardhichand and orsDistinguished¶22
(1981 SCr (1) 97) · Who else cites this
V.Vijayakanth Reddy
State of Telangana
Commissioner of Police
Station House Officer, Cyber Crimes (DD), Hyderabad
The Director, CBI
Y Premchand
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
