Dismissed¶36

Gautam Chand Jain, v. The Government of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Aug 2025WP/20171/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC, W.P. No. 20171 of 2016, N. Tukaramji J., decided 11-08-2025. Article 226 mandamus; petitioner Gautam Chand Jain challenged arrest without investigation in FIR No. 188/16 P.S. Kachiguda and attempted implication in Crime Nos. 322/2016 (Kusalguda), 130/2016 (Nallakunta), 149/2016 (Nacharam); alleged breach of Articles 14 and 21; I.A. No. 1 of 2016 u/S 151 CPC for stay of arrest. On joint submission that cause did not survive, writ petition dismissed as infructuous, no costs, miscellaneous petitions closed. No merits decided, no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed as infructuous without costs and pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed. The merits of the arrest/allegation grievances were not adjudicated. ¶36

Gautam Chand Jain, Vs The Government of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed as infructuous without costs and pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed. The merits of the arrest/allegation grievances were not adjudicated.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in arresting the petitioner without proper investigation although his name was not in FIR No. 188/16 of P.S. Kachiguda, and attempting to implicate him in Crime No. 322/2016 (Kusalguda), Crime No. 130/2016 (Nallakunta) and Crime No. 149/2016 (Nacharam), is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Recording the submissions of both learned counsel, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no costs.

¶36

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, were directed to stand closed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (N. Tukaramji, J.), Writ Petition No. 20171 of 2016, decided 11-08-2025: The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 declaring illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 the respondents' action of arresting him without proper investigation although his name did not appear in FIR No. 188/16 of P.S. Kachiguda, and of attempting to implicate him in Crime No. 322/2016 (P.S. Kusalguda), Crime No. 130/2016 (P.S. Nallakunta) and Crime No. 149/2016 (P.S. Nacharam). An application under Section 151 CPC (I.A. No. 1 of 2016 / WPMP No. 24757 of 2016) sought stay of the police calls/arrest. At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause did not survive for adjudication and sought dismissal as infructuous, to which the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home took no objection. The Court recorded the submissions and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, without costs, closing pending miscellaneous petitions. No question of law was decided and no precedent was considered; the order is citable only for the fact of disposal as infructuous, not for any legal proposition.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20'171 OF²⁰¹⁶

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gautam Chand Jain, S/o Late Meg Raj Jain,^{Aged about 55 years' Occ;Business,} Rio 3-4-673, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Government of Telangana, Rep^{by its Principal Secretary,Home} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The S.H.O, Kachiguda Police Station,^Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The S.H.O, Kusalguda Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶14

¶15

4 The S.H.O, Nallakunta Police Station,^Hyderabad.

¶16

5 The S.H.O, Nacharam Police Station,^Cyberabad.

¶17

t..,...RESPoNDENTs

¶18

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 or order or directions especially^{one in the natureof writ of} Mandamus declaring the action^{of Respondents that without Properinvestigation} simply arrested the^{petitionerwithout his namein FIR No 1BB/16 P S Kachiguda} and trying to implication in^{the other CrimeNo 32212016 PoliceKusalguda,} Hyderabad, Crime No 13012016^{PoliceNatlakunta, Hyderabad and CrimeNo} 14g12O16 Police Nacharam, cyberabad,^{without anyproper investigation is illegal,} arbitrary and violate the^{Article 14 and 21 of constitutionof lndiaand besides} being opposed to the^{principles of naturaljustice.}

¶19

|.A.NO:'f OF 2016^{(WPMP.NO:24757} OF 2016

¶20

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of calling the petitioner to Kusalguda Police Station, Cyberabad, Nallakunta Polrce Station, Hyderabad and Nacharam Police Station, Cyberabad including the arrest in the Crrme No.32212016 police Krrsalguda, Hyderabad, Crime No.130/2016 police Nallakunta, Hyderabad and Crime No 149/20'16 Police Nacharam, Cyberabad, pending final disposal of the main^,/v-it petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.MALLIKARJUN

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABI.E^SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.2017 10F²⁰¹⁶

¶26

o RDER:

¶27

This \X/rit Petition is^{frled underArticle226 of C'onstitution} of India seeking^{the following reliefls.}

¶28

"... to issue wdt or order or directions^{especiallyone in the} nature of writ of^{Mandamus declaringthe action of} Resoondents that^{without Properinvestigationsimplyarrested} rhe petitioner^{without his name in FIRNo.188/16 of P'S} t<rchigr-d, and trying to^implication .in.thg^{other Crime} No.J2:2/20t6 Police^{Kusalguda, Hldenbad, CrimeNo'} B)/2arc of^{PoliceNallakuna,Hyderabadand Crime No'} 149/2016 of Police^{Nacharam, Clberabad,withoutany} ProPer investigation is^{illegal, artitrary and violatSthe Article 14 and 21} of Coistitutio.t^{oT I.rdi, and besidesbeing opposed to the} principles of^{natural justice and passsuch other order or} orders...

¶29

2 Fleard Mr.K.Mallikarjun,^{Iearnedcounsel for,the petitioner} and Mr.Rlaxmikanth^{Reddy, Ieamed fusistantGovemment}

¶30

Pleader for Home^{appearingfor respondent Nos'1 to 5'}

¶31

3 Leamed counsel^{for the petitioner submits that the causein} this vrit perition^{does not survivefor adjudication and seeks to} dismiss this \X/rit^{Petitionas infructuous.}

¶32

¶33