Dismissed¶30

Kandula Venkataramana Reddy v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC17 Sept 2025WP/8649/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; WP.No.8649 of 2016; Sri Justice N. Tukaramji; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; quashing of charge sheet in C.C. No.374 of 2015 (Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bodhan, Nizamabad District); Section 151 CPC stay application; acquittal of petitioners; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs. Counsel: Bollam Lingaiah Yadav for petitioners; R. Laxmikanth Reddy, AGP for Home, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ¶30

Kandula Venkataramana Reddy Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

.4,

¶2

$217^|

¶3

HrGHcouRr*iJSHI6]',E,3515h$i3.flT$ATHYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY'rHEsEvENrifr Btfi^{,PA'"??sEPrEtilBER}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE^{HONOUNAELESRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶7

T""$,H"#:ffisr

¶8

i-:tffirellffi{#:*ffiW

¶9

X'Xen?,^{B$'Hr'&ililf,L;;a;..:l'l::"ndra} BoS€. Rged^{about 43 y9ars,} Bodhan^{Town'Nlzarruud\J v'lerrrvs'}

¶10

, *#li+rfg :tm-mfrff,hl6,lffils'ffi"1

¶11

...'ET.T.ONERS

¶12

AND ..- h-i^ainar q,o.retArv. H o me De pzpartment' P ri^{n ci p a I Secreta ry'o}

¶13

, +:ffi;?,f""g3l3{}nzl:-?ss;iJ"its

¶14

2.TheStationHouseofficer,BodhanPoliceStation,NizamabadDistrict. 3. rhe Nizamabad^District H31.#,:k,^{Dlstrlcl' A[ l\rzdrrra.,,ctu' .,:ilgil?state civir suppties corporationLtd''}

¶15

...RES'ONDENTS

¶16

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circurnstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith'the High court maybe} pleasedtoissrreawrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof WritofCertioraricallingfortherecor.dsrelatingtoChargeSheetinC.C.t,{o.374of ,, u on the^{file of Judicial First classMagistrate, at Bodhan, Nizamabad Dlstrict'} and^{quash the sameby declaring it as illegal'arbitrary and in violation of} prirrciples of Natural^{Justice the same'}

¶17

¶18

the affidavit Petition under Sectionfiled in support of 151 the cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in all further proceedings including appearance Petition, the of High Courtthe may be pleased to stay 2015 on the file of Judicial First petitioners in C.C. No.3 74 of Pending disposal of the main writ petition.Class Magistrate, at Bodhan , Nizamabad District, counsel for the Petitioner : sRt B.LLA, LtNcAtAH 'ADAV Counset for the ReISpondents No.1&2: sR, R.LO(M,KANTH REDDY,AGP FoR H.ME Counsel forthe Respondents No.3: The Court madethe following: ORDER

¶19

a', (l

¶20

SRI^{JUSTICEN'TUI(ARAIIIJI}

¶21

THE

¶22

OROER: )onstitution^{d lndia} This^{Writ Pet'rtionis filed underArticle 226 ol (}

¶23

seeking^{the following} ving^i'etieietief^:

¶24

'tlp,tr##T:trfftr ll'?:!^{ar!ftraa etttu t'o ''-'--} 2. same""^{Heard Sri BollamLingaiahYadav'bamedc'ounselfor} the

¶25

petitionersandMr.R.LaxmikanthRed,dy,learnedAssistantGovemment Pleader^{for Home appearing for respondent Nos'1 and 2'}

¶26

would^{submit that as the}

¶27

1. Learned^{counsel for the petitioners} of 2015^{on the fib of the}

¶28

petitioners^{were acquittedin C'C'No'374} Bodhan,^{Nizamabad District}

¶29

barned^{Judicial Magistrateof FirstClass at} and^{the contest of the petitioners has become infructuous'}

¶30

Recording^{the submissionof the learned counsel for the} petitioners,thisWritPetitionisdismissedasinfructuous.Thereshallbe no order^{as to costs'}

¶31

if any,^{shallstandclosed.} Miscellaneous^{Petitions'Pending} RANI SDI. ASSISTANT ,,TRUE^COPY'I OFFICER To, 1. One^{CC to SRI BOLLAM LINGAIAHYADAV' Advocate' [OPUCI} 2. Two^{ccs to Gp FoR HoME,High courtfor the stateof Telangana' [oUTl} 3.^{Two CD.CoPies'}

BSK & TKS

I i

HIGH COURT

DATED :lTtOgl2OZs

';i{ tHE s i
i i.g,ttttt?o?t
\ ,y
*
a