Dismissed¶56

Cherukuri Gopinath v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2025WP/4003/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No.4003 of 2018, High Court for the State of Telangana, N. Tukaramji J., 06/11/2025, dismissed as infructuous without costs. Keywords: 41-A CrPC notice dated 30.01.2018; Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar guidelines; Crime No.934/2017 dated 11.12.2017; counter complaint dated 13.12.2017; VII Metropolitan Magistrate Hayathnagar; SR No.10797/2017 dated 27.12.2017; writ of Mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14, 19, 21, 300-4; IA No.1 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC; cause of action no longer survives; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Since the cause of action in the writ petition no longer survives for adjudication, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader raised no objection, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs. ¶39

Cherukuri Gopinath Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t3217 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE ST/

¶3

,,,#iIf"TiFftl:,,::,'='^-cANA

¶4

THURSDAY,]ry_E StxTH DAy oF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWETVTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

Between:

¶8

j8[""#[il"[i*,"q,f,':,.1*frriily:**3,,ffi,?ril,??JBaffi ?b,,siness,

¶9

"^{fumt [ir",3i""i:u'ot3'#yil#;HiJd1#ff,i,'x} 3. Cherukuri Cherukuri Gavr

¶10

Cherukuri Cherukuri Gavr FbiN;,ibuYi63:'h#,f,,.333,X311;s%.1#rx,.3;;,ff

¶11

3?#ionoBusiness,R/o

¶12

AND ...PETtfloNERS

¶13

1s:xi:3r,r'"Fl,ffi

¶14

Director ( [rB"f,f:ii3tffir]1i?[.f;;qg*:":".^b.w 3. commissioner of pdr.JlHJ , ltyderabad^{500032-'rYv'' \e}

¶15

:^{Pr"E#[commissionerof Police, LB Nagar Zone,LB Nagar, Hyderabad}

¶16

: iffibT?tt commissioner of Potice, LB Nagar division, LB Nagar, Hyderabad :^ff8b%"' commissioner of Police, Vanasthatipuram division, Hyderabad va nastha tipu ram Po|ice station, Va nastha ripura m,

¶17

: ryff[txt?3fl'i3t o5;1rf,,.1iF3:A!,*"h?j3,5r5'?11#:{ij,,13,?3i;;xij#,ur7ox,i1?,0"" ___, ysv.,yq,qycr ndgar, Vanas

¶18

_^500070.

¶19

9' The commissioner And Registrar.oJCooperative_societies, 3rd froor, G ru h a ka I p a ou ir o i n s, op b . 6:; ;o rr i E n-""rXnl, fi I 1l p r r y, H yd e ra b a d.

¶20

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and declare A)The contents of the 3 Notices issued uts 41-A crPc' 1973 dated 3o'ol '2018 on the file of sth Respondent is viotative of Hon,bre

¶23

Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and B)lnterrogation/r:nquiry procedure in impugned 41-A notice which is beyond the allegations in Crime No.934/2017 dated 11.12.2017 registered on the file of 7th Respondent anrJ C)lnaction against the counter complaint filed on 13.12.17 and also referred by Vll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar bearing SR No.1079712017 dated 27.12.2017 to the 7th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional And violative of article 14,19 And 21 and 300-4.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 20X8

¶25

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 direct the 7th Responclent to investigate the counter complaint filed on 13.12.17 and also referred by Vll lvletropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar bearing SR No.1079712017 dated 27.12.2017 to the 7th Respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PILLADA SATYANARAYAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l TO 7: SRI D.PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: -

¶27

The Court made' the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICF N.TUIGRAMJI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.4003 OF²⁰¹⁸

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

T'his Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

¶32

¶33

"...to issue a !7rit, Order or Direction more particulady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare A)The Contents of the 3 Notices issued u/s 4l-A CIPC, 7973 dated 30.01.2018 on the file of 5th Respondent is violative of Honble Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and B)Interrogation/enquiry procedure in impugned 41-A notice which is beyond the allegations in Crime No.934/2077 dzted 11.1,2.201.7 registered on the file of 7th Respondent and C)Inaction against the counter complaint filed on 13.12.L7 and also referred by VII Metropolitan Magisrate, Havarhnagar bearing SR No.10797 /2017 dated 27.1.2.2017 to the 7'h Respondent as illegal, arbitary and unconstitutional And violative of article 14,19 And 2l and 300-4 and to pass......"

¶34

Heard Mr.Ch.V.Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Plcader for Homc appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause ot actron lfl the present writ petition no longer survives flor adjudication and, thereflore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition^as inFrucruous

¶36