1. Nunavath Suresh Babu v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No. 4 to s not to call the petitioners to the respondent No.4 and 5 police station without due process of law and consequentially direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to enquire in to the matter with pending before the respondent No.4 to 6 police station and further direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to restraining the registration of multiple FlRs against the petitioners with sarne set of facts before any police station with jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 and 3. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court mily be pleased be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.6 and 7 to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner no.1, dt.06-03-2025, 28-02-2025 pending disposal of the main writ petition and Pass lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the responderrt No.4 and 5 to follow the Arnesh Kumar Vs. state of Bihar case guidelines basing on the case registered before 4th respondent vide Cr.No.375/ 2025, d1.25-02-202Sfor the offences under the section 316(2), 318(4) BNS pending disposal of main writ petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 7 placing the information to hold the enquiry, against the un-official respondent No.10 and further direct to file report before this Hon'ble court for action taken report, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEERA BABU GANDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 7: SRI G.ANIKETH'REDDY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I i I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No. 8019 of 2025 ORDER This \A/rit Petltion is filed with the following prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affldavit, lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more pafticularly one in the nalure of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.4 to 5 not to call the petitioners to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 police station without due process of law and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 t-o enquire into the matter with pending before the respondent Nos.4 to 6 police statiOn and further direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restraining the registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioners with same set of facts before any police station wlth jurisdiction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and pass such order and orders as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. " 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for- hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of /rs involved, this Court is of the 2 view that notice to unofncial respondent Nos.8 to 11 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that though a complaint has already been registered against the petitioners herein on the flle of the 4th respondent, videCrime No,373 of 2025 dt.25.02.2025, the 5h respondent is calling the petitioners to the police station without following due process of law.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that since a crime arising out of the same incident is already registered on the file of the 4th respondent, the authorities should be restrained from registering multiple FIRs against the petitioners.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7 submits that the petitioners' in the name of providing softvvare jobs have collected monies from various persons and the said persons are approaching the respondents-authorities and lodging complaints.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that one such complaint was lodged by Challapally Aparna, the 1lth respondent herein, with the 4h respondent, based on which, a crime has been registered against the petitioners herein, while one M.Prathap along with six others, rzr2., M.Venkata Krishna, K.Prudvi, r-==--r*J 3 A.Srinivas, P.Akash, T.Vishnu and Sk.Khasim, who are residing at Madhapur, have approached the 5th respondent and lodged a complaint on 06.03.2025 stating that the petitioners had collected in all an amount of Rs.22,00,000/-, from them promising to provide software jobs but did not provide jobs and exploited them' B. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that on the foresaid complaint being lodged by M.Prathap and six others, the authorities have issued acknowledgme nt, vide No'CYB/MDPUR-CYB/ 060325/01209 dt.06.03.2025 at 14.19 hours; and that since the aforesaid complaint showed commission of a cognizable offence, the authorities, for the purpose of enquiry, have called the petitioners to the police station.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader by placinq before this Court the written instructions dt.17.03.2025 under the signature of the 5th respondent - Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, would submit that though the 1't petitioner had appeared before the 5th respondent on 09.03.2025, he did not cooperate with the investigation by providing requisite information'

10. By the written instructions, it is further stated that the petitioners in order to avoid investigation into commission of various offences of cheating by collecting money in the name of providing 4 employment from various persons. have filed the present Writ petition claiming that the incident is one and as such, only one FIR can only be registered and thus, seek to restrain registration of FIRs, which in the given fact/pattern cannot be permitted.

11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 12, Though on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that commission of offence by them is a single instance, it is to be noted that the pe,titioners have collected monies from various people in the name of providing jobs and such act of the petitioners in cheating multiple people and collecting money in the name of providing jobs cannot be considered as one incident for the authorities to register only one single case/crime.

13. Since the victims of the cheating resofted to by the petitioners are approached the concerned authorities by lodging their complaints and the complaint of M.Pratap and six others lodged on 06.03.2025 being one of such complaints, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition of restraining the respondents from registering FIRs cannot be granted.

14. Since M.Pratap and six others have approached the 5h respondent and lodged a complaint on 06.03.2025, this Cout is of the I 5 VieWthattherespondents-authoritiesaretobedirectedtoinvestigate into the aforesaid crime strictly in accordance with law'

15. Subject to above dlrection, the Writ Petition is disposed of' No order as to costs. 16 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/I SDI.K.AMMAJI REGISTRAR ON OFFICER to'.r. an" principal Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat, HYderabad, State of General of police' Lakdikapul' Hyderabad sioner of Police, CYberabad' n House Officer' Narsingi Police officer, MadhaPur Police Officer, Miyapur Police 'station' Cyberabad station, CYberabad station, CYberabad erate. House missioner Of Police' R'C' Puram police station, CYberabad ERA BABU GANDU' Advocate [OPUCI FOR HOME, High Court for the Sta te of Telangana at Telangana

2. The Director 3. The Commis 4. The Statio Commission 5 The Station House Commissionerate '

6. The StaUon rate. Commissione 7 The Assistant Com Commissionerate' 8. One CC to SRI VE ' lYS"'",3:.i%3i BSR l+

10.Two CD CoPies t_s HIGH COURT DATED: 1910312025 ORDER WP.No.8019 of 2025 tt1 T4st- a o 16 APfl 2025 i ,sPt P z o t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (A- 3 1-t 9\