Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mrs. Amrita Mishra, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

Home
Telangana HC
2025
Mrs. Amrita Mishra, Vs The State of TelanganaMrs. Amrita Mishra, v. The State of Telangana

Disposed¶35

Mrs. Amrita Mishra, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2025WP/12433/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), Justice J. Sreenivas Rao — W.P. No. 12433 of 2016, decided 12-09-2025. Quashal sought of proceedings in Crime No. 167 of 2016, Narsingi P.S., Cyberabad (Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC; Section 156(3) CrPC); petitioners/accused 1-4: Amrita Mishra, Rakesh Mishra, Mayank Mishra, P. Rajani; respondent No. 4: Sandhya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. During pendency, final report filed stating allegations are civil in nature; Court held cause did not survive adjudication and closed the writ petition, no costs. Keywords: quashing of criminal proceedings, police implication, civil dispute, Article 226 certiorari, Articles 14 and 21, Section 151 CPC interim stay.

What did the court decide?

In view of the Assistant Government Pleader's submission that the Investigation Officer had filed a final report stating the allegations against the petitioners are civil in nature, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No. 3 in implicating the petitioners as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Cr. No. 167 of 2016 (offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 IPC, arising through Section 156(3) CrPC) is illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, warranting quashal of those proceedings by writ of certiorari.

Court's answer

In view of the Assistant Government Pleader's submission that the Investigation Officer had filed a final report stating the allegations against the petitioners are civil in nature, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed as a sequel.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) by four persons arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 167 of 2016 of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad — registered for offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 IPC via Section 156(3) CrPC — seeking a writ of certiorari to declare their implication by respondent No. 3 illegal, arbitrary and high-handed and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and to quash the proceedings. An interim application under Section 151 CPC had sought stay of further proceedings including arrest. During hearing, the Assistant Government Pleader for Home informed the Court that, on completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer had filed a final report stating that the allegations in the complaint were civil in nature. Holding that the cause in the writ petition therefore did not survive for adjudication, the Court closed the writ petition with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications stood closed as a sequel.

A

[³³⁰³¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

WRIT PETITION NO:^'t2433 OF 2016

Between:

Mrs. Amrita Mishra, Wo. Sri Rakesh Mishra Aged 44^years, Occ^Business, Rtto A-1 1, Vikrampuri Colony, Kakaguda, Secunderabad.

Mr. Rakesh Mishra, S/o. Sri Satyaprakash lt/ishra^{Aged52 years, occupation} business, R/o A-11, Vikrampuri Colony Kakaguda, Secunderabad.

Mr. Mayank Mishra, S/o. Sri Rakesh tVishra, Aged 27^{yearc,Rl/o A-1'1} , Vikrampuri Colony Kakaguda, Secunderabad

Dr. P.Rajani, W/o P.Swaroop Reddy, Aged 50^years, Occ Doctor,^{Ryo 50} SRT, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad.

...pETt,oNERS

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home^Department, Secretariat (T.S.), Hyderabad.

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

The Station House Officer, Nasingi Police Station,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

Sandhya Hotels Private Limited, represented^{By its authorized signatory Mr.} D Appa Rao, S/o. Sri D. Satyanarayana, having^its office^{At PIot No. 22,} HUDA Techno Enclave, Sector 2, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

...RESpONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances st4ted in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the^nature of^Writof certiorari declaring the action of the respondent^{No.3 in implicatingthe petitioners} herein as accused No. 1 to 4 in Cr.^{No. 167 of 2016 on the file of SHO,Narsingi} P.S, Cyberabad as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and^{voilative of Article 14 and 21} of Constitution of lndia and with a consequently^{to quash the proceedings against} the petitioner/ accused No. 1 to 4 in Cr.^{No. 167 of 2016 on the file of 3rd} respondent herein.

l.A. NO: 1OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 1s580 0F 2016)

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in thr: :ircumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner:;, accused No.^.l to 4 rn Cr.No. 167 of 20 16 on the file of SHO, Narsingi p.S, Cybe,r rbad.

Counsel for the Peiitioners: SRI VIRAJ FoR SRI T.BALI\ !IoHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: SRI B.SRIDHAt , AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

The Court made the following: ORDER

\ t

\ \

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENryAS RAO

WRTT PETITION No.L2433 of 2O16

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.167 of 2016 on the file of Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. I to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 42O read with 34 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Heard Sri Virqi, learned counsel representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the ofhcial respondents.

During the course of hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Investigation Ofhcer, after conducting the investigation, hled final report stating that the allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint are Civil in Nature'.

In view of the above submission, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

2

I

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no

order as to costs

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications perr, [ing, if any,

in this Writ Petition, sha-ll stand closed.

SD/. AHNII D ABDULLA KHAN ASSIS IANT REGISTRAR \

To

//TRUE COPY//

i FECTTON^OFFTCER

1 One CC to SRI T.BALA MOHAN REDDY, Advocat{1o',.,c1 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the StaQrf lelangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3 Two CD Copies

PSK. GJP MMT

d ,f,

tsi*.*.-

\

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210912025

ORDER

WP.No.12433 of 2016

B {HE .t: -,'D<br>()
li
'i1)<br>0s i ,ii ','
''::.-: . /{ i

CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

MNT I lr- ,J-

i I

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the action of respondent No. 3 in implicating the petitioners as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Cr. No. 167 of 2016 (offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 IPC, arising through Section 156(3) CrPC) is illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, warranting quashal of those proceedings by writ of certiorari.¶19
The court held
In view of the Assistant Government Pleader's submission that the Investigation Officer had filed a final report stating the allegations against the petitioners are civil in nature, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.ratio¶32

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 4 enactments

AI extract

Indian Penal Code, 1860406, 420 read with 34¶29
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973156(3)¶29
Constitution of IndiaArticles 14 and 21¶19
Code of Civil Procedure151¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Action of respondent No. 3 (SHO, Narsingi P.S.) in implicating the petitioners as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 167 of 2016, challenged as illegal, arbitrary and high-handed; petitioners sought quashal of those proceedings.¶29
Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad
Prior proceeding
Interim application (I.A. No. 1 of 2016 / WPMP No. 15580 of 2016) under Section 151 CPC seeking stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Cr. No. 167 of 2016.¶21
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Investigation Officer completed the investigation and filed a final report stating that the allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint are civil in nature, as submitted by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home during the hearing.¶31

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Mrs. Amrita Mishra¶8
Viraj, T. Bala Mohan Reddy
petitioner
Mr. Rakesh Mishra¶9
Viraj, T. Bala Mohan Reddy
petitioner
Mr. Mayank Mishra¶10
Viraj, T. Bala Mohan Reddy
petitioner
Dr. P. Rajani¶11
Viraj, T. Bala Mohan Reddy
respondent
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department¶14
B. Sridhar
respondent
The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District¶15
B. Sridhar
respondent
The Station House Officer, Nasingi Police Station, Ranga Reddy District¶16
B. Sridhar
respondent
Sandhya Hotels Private Limited¶17

Coram

AI extract

J. Sreenivas Raoauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 12 Sept 2025 · September
Registered: 12 Apr 2016
Case no.: WP/12433/2016
CNR: HBHC010115512016
Topic: Cheating and Forgery
Bench: J Sreenivas Rao
Disposal: CLOSED NO COSTS
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from J Sreenivas Rao

M/S. Ashish Agencies, Hyd and Anr., Vs M/S. Durga Drugs, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.
11 Sept 2025
A.Koti Reddy Son of A.V.K. Reddy, Vs the State of Telangana
10 Sept 2025
Guglavath Nandya Vs State of Telangana
10 Sept 2025
Sri Innamuri Narasimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others
12 Sept 2025
Bhimavarapu Naga Soundarya, (A5) and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana
12 Sept 2025
Ashok Kumar Kamshatti Vs State of Telangana
12 Sept 2025

Cite this judgement

Mrs. Amrita Mishra, v. The State of Telangana, WP/12433/2016 (TEL), decided on 12 September 2025.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes4

Indian Penal Code, 1860406, 420 read with 34
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973156(3)
Constitution of IndiaArticles 14 and 21
Code of Civil Procedure151

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Action of respondent No. 3 (SHO, Narsingi P.S.) in implicating the petitioners as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 167 of 2016, challenged as illegal, arbitrary and high-handed; petitioners sought quashal of those proceedings.Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad
Interim application (I.A. No. 1 of 2016 / WPMP No. 15580 of 2016) under Section 151 CPC seeking stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Cr. No. 167 of 2016.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Investigation Officer completed the investigation and filed a final report stating that the allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint are civil in nature, as submitted by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home during the hearing.

View full history

Bench / Coram

J. Sreenivas Rao

Parties & counsel