Writ petition sought quashing of a charge sheet in a Cyber Crime case for offences under Sections 504 and 505 IPC. Following the Apex Court's ruling in Pradnya Pranjai Kulkarni, the court held the petition not maintainable since cognizance had been taken, and granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies.
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.
[33031
IN THE HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THEEIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTYFIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEJ SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION NO:45992 OF 2022
Between:
Chinthaoandu Naveen Kumar,Teenmar Mallanna,S/o Bagayya.agedabout 39 v.Jri',tcc.-JouinalistR/o Plot No.3, lst Floor, Nirmal Kuteer Heights, Uppal, Medchal Malkaigiri
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONOENTS
Petition underArticle 226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be pleased to issue writ or writsthat particularlyone in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaringthe contents of the charge sheetin crime No. 230412020 do not constituteany offenceas suchcontinuance of the prosecutionof the petitioner is a sheer abuse of theprocess of the court and hence the petitioner be discharged from thechargesto securethe ends of justice and pass such other order or orders as thisHonblecourt maydeem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
lA NO: 1 OF 022
Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioner during the trial of crime No. 23114/2020 pending disposar of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. S. SHARAT KUMAR
counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 3: sRt B. SRIDHAR AGp FoR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 4: ---
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS, RAO ON
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the contents of the charge sheet in Crime No.2304 of 2020 of Cyber Crime police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 504, 505 (lxb), 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (ln short 'lPC') as illegal and arbitrary.
\
2
representar'ior o, beharf of the petitioner in the morning session and afternoon sesst()n.
3' Mr.B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home, appea:ing for respondent Nos. r and,2, submitted that by 'irtue of the principre laid down by the Apex court in pradnya pranjar Kurkarni v. state of fu{aharashtrot, the writ petitign fired by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in c'c' No'12270 of 2021invoking the jurisdicrion under Articlc 226 of the constitution of [ndia, is not rnaintainable under law. as trre rearned Magist:ate has taken cognizance.
4' Taking into consideration the facts and circunlstances of the case and also the' principle laid down by the Hon,bre Apex court in procrnya pronjar Kulkarni's case (supra), this court is of the considered view that the.petitio,er is not er:titred to the relief sought in the writ petition. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedies as available under raw, if so rre is aggrieved.
5 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Pr:nding misce,aneous applications, if any, sha, stand crosed.
SD/- P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT 6REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Dept, State of relangana, secretariat, Hyderabad.
I
1 i1 d
DAN PVL
K
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/1 012025
ORDER
\nE 5
.r,t
")
'J
Z,
'( '1 [ r,8 2[116
* * ,
DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
,rq)P
<br>f o
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 to quash a charge sheet after cognizance by the Magistrate is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pradnya Pranjai Kulkarni v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶3
Pradnya Pranjai Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Chinthaoandu Naveen Kumar (Teenmar Mallanna)
The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Dept
The State of Telangana through SHO Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad
Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, DD CCS, Hyderabad
G. Chandra Mohan
J Sreenivas Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
