Disposed

Dinesh Mulchandani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2026WP/3090/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged continued police harassment by summons to CCS DD despite an earlier order directing compliance with Arnesh Kumar guidelines and a BNSS notice. The court directed official respondents to issue notice under Section 35(3) BNSS and strictly comply with prior directions, disposing of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Official respondents directed to issue notice under Section 35(3) BNSS per Arnesh Kumar guidelines and comply with Crl.P. No. 8225/2025 directions; petitioner to cooperate with investigation; no costs

Dinesh Mulchandani Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

[^32ee ]

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3090 0F 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dinesh lVulchandanr, ,S/o. Mulchandani Rajesh, Aged about 35 years, OccBusiness, Rlo. 1-B-571402, Jawahar Nagar, F{yderaSad.

¶9

...PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 lfgllrlg of Tetangana, B"! .Oy its principat Secretary, Home Department. ,^{At Secretariat, Hyderabad, TelanganaState.}

¶12

The commrssionei' of^porice, citiz-poiice commissionei.ate, At- Bai^,jara hilis, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

The Sub Ins^pector of Police, CCS DD, At- Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶14

Suraj Pishu Baxani, S/o pjshu R. Baxani, Aged about 48 years, Occ_

¶15

Business, Rl/o. Flat no. 1804, LH 15, Lanco Flills, IVanikontr, f.'S.^--

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or orders in the nature of writ of MANDAlvus declaring the action of the Respondents No.3 for harassing the petitioner by calling him into the police station (ccs DD) basheerbagh, without being any reasons inspite of passing orders in Quash Petition crl.No. 822s12025, dt- 12-11-2025 disposed off giving direction to the respondent No.3 to follow the guidelines under Judgement Arnesh V. state of Bihar (2014) Vorume 8, scc 273 and, repry given by the petitioner to the Notice of the petitioner dated- 01-12-2025 including all the relevant documents/material including bank statement and in view of harassment a representation made by the petitioner to respondent No.2 dt- 2901-2026 which was not considered, as such the act of the respondents No. 2 AND 3 amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 19,21 and 3004 of the constitution of India. and to declare the actions of the respondents No.3 as totally illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of Natural Justice, against

¶18

law and liable to be set-aside ultra vires and the same is u gainst the provisions of the Article 19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the )ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL 1 may be pleased to Direct the Respondent No.3not to harass the petitloner t,, calling him into the police station (CCS DD) by interfering into the personal lfe and liberty of the petitioner without following the guidelines laid down unde- Judgment Arnesh V. State of Bihar (2014) Volume 8, SCC 273ti11 disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: SRI M.SRINIVAS, A,Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶22

Th^ a^.,-+ 6--l^ ah^ {^ll^..,i--. n E riEtl rr!,rtr.trry II ig. iia\ii-a\

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.3O9O of 2o26

¶26

DATE OF ORDER: 03.02.2o26

Between:

Dinesh Mulchandani

Petitioner

AND

The Statc of Tclangana,

¶32

rep. b5r its Principal Secretatl, Home Departme nt,

¶33

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶34

Respondents

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the

¶37

Constitution of lndia, is filed seeking the following reliel

¶38

*...pleased lo pass an order or orders in the nature of Wnt of IT4ANDAMUS declaing the action of the Respondents No.3 for horassing tte petitioner bg calling him into the police station^(CCS DD) basheerbagh, tuithout being any reasons inspite of passirtg orders in Quash

¶39

Page 2 of6

¶40

Petition CrLNo.8225/ 2025, dt- 12 11-2O25^rt. ;posed of giuing direction to the respondent No.3 tct bLlou the guidelin.es under Judgemett Arnesh V. Sta' t of Bihar (2O14) Volume 8, SCC 273 and, replA giL( n. bq the petitioner to the Notice of the petitiorter dated ) I^- 12-2025 including all the releuant docuntents/ materl(.' including banlc stotetnent and in uieu of harc^: sment ct representation made bg the petitioner to resp(t dent No.2 dt- 29-01-2026 tuhich u)as not cottsidered, c: such the act of the respondents No.2 and 3 amounts to^t ioLation of the rights guaronteed under Article 1 9, 2 1 a t I sooA of the Constitution of India. ond to declare the ctct ons of the respondents I[o.3 as totaLly iLlegol, arbitrary. : Tainst^the pinciples of Natural Justice, against lanu aru7 I able to be set-aside ultra uires a.n.d the same is c^t ainst the prouisiotts of the AfticLe 19, 21 and 3Or) A of tlrc Constitutiott of India ctnd to pass.^{. . .} . "

¶41

Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned cour sel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, lear r ed Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondent I os. I to 3 and perused the record.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the pe I tioner u,ould 1n submit that the petitioner has been falsely mplicated offences uncier Sections 316(4), 318(4), 336(3), \aO r lw 6l(21 BNSS and Section 66 of the lT Act in FIR 1o.25512024, dated 31.12.2024 registered by CCS Team-1 DI^t. Hyderabad. The allegations made by respondent No.4 reg:r', ting cheating,

¶43

criminal^{breachof trust,misappropriationoffunds'} falsification^{of documents' and malipulationof financial and} computer^{records to the tune of Rs' 1 8croresare whollY} faise.

¶44

It^is contendecl^{thatrespondentNo'4 lodged} a cyclostylecl^{complainton 3O12 '2024 withoutannexing any} Without^{conducting any preliminary} supporting^documents enquiry^{or verification' the police mechanically registeredFIR} solely at^{the instance of respondentNo'4'Subsequently'} respondent^{No'4 rssuecla legal notice under Section 138 of} the NI^{Act aileging dishonour of cheques worth Rs'75 lakhs'} Thesaidnoticeiscontrarlictorytoanothernoticewhereinit was falsely^{allegedthat Rs'3 crores had been swindledby the} petitioner^{and others'}

¶45

It is further^{alleged that underthe guise of a false} complaint,^{respondentNo 4 forciblyobtained blank cheques} from the^{petitioner' u'hich rl'ere later misused' Initiationof} parailel^{criminal proceedingsagainst the petitioneris not} maintainable^{and that the petitioner has been subjected to}

¶46

Page.l ol6

¶47

harassment,^{including repeated visits to his rc s idence bl' the} police, despite^{no notice underSection 35 BNSI ihavingbeen} served prior^{to filing of the charge sheet' l'ltFIR' having} beenregisteredsolellronabarecomplaint'islabletobeset aside

¶48

<t.822512025 Aggrieved, the^{petitionerfiledCrl P l} before this Court seeking^{quashmentof the FI} ?. This Court disposed of the petition^{dtrecting the petitrct} er to appear before the Investigating^{Officerand mandarir-} g compliance with Section 35(3) BNSS^{and the guidelines} Iaid down in Arnesh Kumar u. State^{ofBihar. The)} rtitioner has cooperated u,ith the investigation^{and submitlt} C his reply to BNSS notice on 01.12.2025.^{Despite this, rer;} ronde nt No.3, at the instigation of respondent^{No.4, contirt} t:d to harass the petitioner and other accused,^incir-rding1 ,r,^callingthe petitioner to the CCS office without^jtLst lication and aiiegedll, using coercive methods. Such^a( [ions are in vioiation of BNSS guidelines, the Arnesh Kt'r.ⁱ ar judgment, and Articles 19 al1d 2 1 of the Constitution^. 'he petitioner

¶49

Page^{:' ol o}

¶50

made^{a representation dated 29 'Ol '2026 to respondentNo 2} seeking^{intervention'but noaction 'vas taken' The} continued^{harassmentbyrespondentNo 3 isillegal'} arbitrary,^{violativeof principles of naturaljustice' and an} infringement^{of the petitioner's fundamentalrights'}

¶51

7 . Learned^{Assistart GovernmentPleader forHome} submitted^{that the presentwrit petitionhas been filed under} misconception'^{The official respondents have not taken any} illegal^{steps' ltwas further submitted that the authorities} are^{only contemplatingaction unde r Section 35(3)' and that} any^{action, if at all taken' would be strictly in accordance} with^{Section 35(3)' The investigation is being conductedby} respondent^{No'3 on the basis ol a complaintlodged by} respondent^{No'4 againstthe petitioner' and appropriate} orders^{will be Passedthereafter'}

¶52

8 In^{view of ttr'e aforesaid factsand circumstancesof the} material^availableon case,^{and uPon consideration of the} ened^{and directed the} record,^{this Court has already interv} under^{Section 35(3) of} otficiat^{respondents to issuea notice}

¶53

l'agc 6 of6

¶54

the BNSS, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar a. State of Bihqrr. This Court further deems it appropria,, to direct the official respondents to strictly comply with trc directions issued in Crl.P. No. 8225 of 2025. Anv devirr ion from the said directions shall be viewed seriously by thi; Court

¶55

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposei of. However, the petitioner shall cooperate with the Invest i latir-rg Oflicer by furnishing such information and documt)n s as mar. be sought for the purpose of concluding the invest qation. There shal1 be no order as to costs

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if i ny, pending, shall stand closed.

¶57

' (20 14) I scc 273 SD/- C. DEEPII(A 4SSt^}TANT REG|STRAC //TRUE COPY// To SECTION OFFICER 1 rlBlJ|f:'Sljecretary,^{Home Department, At Secrreta.} it, Hyderabad, 2 3. IlE"!,[T]'fl,i,"J;ij3',':id.t't'Porice^{commissionb,:e, At- Banjarahirrs,} +:i,irT"'i$:ctoior^{Porice, ccs DD, At- Basheerbaqr} Hyderabad, 4. q 3tft fl1i","""5iJ8'J!t,unn,n,,, M 6. H;"H,.,{J$ffi,i|'L3f PSK GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310212026

ORDER

WP.No.3090 of 2026

r,ES I4
( oI{
o
Z
1 {F 21126
* Or.( *
r'raF rQ

¶63

-DISPOSING OF THEWRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

,(
1 *

Dinesh Mulchandani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Mulchandani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lavudya Anitha Vs State of Telangana

M/s Ironwood Cafe Vs The State of Telangana

Pedelli Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Chintakayala Veerendra Kumar Vs The State Election Commissioner

Taneeru Raju, Vs The State of Telangana

Kaki Jai Krishna @ Chanti Vs The State of Telangana