Maima Mishra v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the constirution 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 annulling the entire gamut of process in the pursuance of proceedings in CC NO. 2578 OF 2024, dated 05.12.2024 in Cr.No 1318 of 2024 Dated 23.1 1.2024, registered by P.S. Jawahar Nagar, pending on the file of Hon'ble lll Addl. Junior civil Judge cum x Addl. Judicial Magistrate of first class Medchal Malkajgiri district, at Medchal Athevelly and award the compensation to the Petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights in the interest of .iustice. l.A.NO:'l OF 202s Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court r ray be pleased to stay of all further proceedrngs in CC NO. 2578 OF 2024. dak <

05.12.2024 in Cr.No 1318 of 2024 Daled 23 11.2024, registered by P.S. Jawrrl the file of Hon'ble lll Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cum X Adcl ar Nagar, pend ing on .J ud icial Magistrate of first class l\rledchal tr,/alkajgiri district, at tVedchal Athevell', till the disposal of this case in the interest of justice. l.A.NO:2 OF 2025 Between: Kanduri Venkata Satya Subramanyam, S/o Late K.V.S.R firlur ry, age- 49 yrs, Occ- Prrvate Service, R/o Flat 125, Block 5, GKs Pride, Yapral, Al,v rl (M), lVedchal (D). ....PETIT|ONl: URESPONDENT No.3 AND

1. [\r]arma Mishra, D/o Shamsundar Misra, age 24 years )cc ; Student, R/o. Via Sardegna,13, Bologna, BO, ltaly 40139, Premanent rr:r idence of Shiv Colony, Ramnagar, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 . .....RESPONDIiI ITM/RIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Represented by the Principal I ecretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

3. The Station House Officer, (lnspector of Police) Jawal : r Nagar PS, SHO Jawaharnagar Rachakonda Police Commissionerate tl derabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the 1)r cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor r may be pleased to vacate the order dated 30.06.2025 passed in LA. No. 1 of 2 )25 in WP. No. 17806 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHINTHAKINDI AVINASH I :UMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.S.SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI CHETLURU SREEI IVAS The Court made the following ORDER .,/ -7r THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.17806 ot 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking a direction in the nature of fi/andamus annulling the entire gamut of process in pursuance of the proceedings in CC No.2578 oI 2024 in Crime No.1318 of 2024 on the file of lll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate of first class tvledchal-Malkajgiri District

2. Heard Sri R.S Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a false complaint is lodged against the petitioner-Mahima Misra and one Sibichakravarthy-accused No.2 by lhe respondent No.3-de faclo complainant complaining that the petitioner herein is due to pay some amount to him and that he initiated legal proceedings for recovery of money against her and that the petitioner instigated accused No.2, who is in live-in-relationship with her to threaten the d-e "focto complainant to withdraw the proceedings against her. The r/ I 2 ETD,J W.P. No 17A06 ot 2025 ! learned counsel further submitted that the allety rtions are false in nature and the police are hand_in-glove vr h the de facto complainant and have recorded the statements ,r witnesses on the same night immediatery after registration of cri r e at about 10.00 Plt/. He further submitted that earlier the petitic r er was in live-rn_ relationship with the de facto complainant and after she left his society, the de facto complainant filed a suit for r rcovery of money and also filed the present complaint bearing g r tdge against the petitioner with all false allegations and that no n: ice was given to her while taking cognizance in the case. 4 Learned Assistant Government plead,-. for Home has submitted that the writ petition itserf is not maintair rbre because the charge sheet is frred and cc is numbered as 2578 rf 2024 and thus, a writ petitron is not maintainable in such cas: s for seeking a direction of Mandamus to annul the proceedin(,r. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Responding to the said contention of the I :arned Assistant Government Pleader, learned counsel for th() petitioner has submitted that this Court has ample powers to )onvert the writ petition into a quash petition and dispose of the san rr . -'7 ,/ - J EfD,J w.P. No.17406o11025

6. Perused the record

7. ln the first instance, it has to be examined whether the writ petition is maintainable or not. The writ petition filed is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus annulling the proceedings in CC No.257B of 2024. Learned Government Pleader for Home has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and anotherl, wherein a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia as well as under Section 528 of BNSS was presented by the petitioner therein before the High Court of Bombay. ln the said writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of FIR and the same has been disposed of by the High Court stating that in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeta Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.2, the petition for quashing the FIR after filing of charge sheet becomes infructuous. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner approached the Supreme Cou( and the Supreme Court discussed the case law laid down in Neeta Singh's case (supra 2) and has held that the writ petition was filed only under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia while the jurisdiction under Article 227 o'f the Constitution and ' 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875 'zSpecial Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13578 of 2024 I \ 1 EIO,J w.P. No 17406 012025 Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure was rc t invoked and the cognizance of offence had been taken by the reler lnt criminal court. ln the said circumstances, the Apex Court has :pheld the order passed by the Allahabad High Court wherein it wes held that the writ petition became infructuous by reason of subsequ : rt events. B. ln Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni's case (sul a '1 ), the petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution o' lndia and 528 of BNSS for quashing the FlR. Thus, it was observrt I that so long the cognizance of offence is not taken, a writ or orde' to quash the FIR can be issued under Article 226 of lhe Constitutior rf lndia, but once a judicial order of cognizance is taken, the power rnder Article 226 would not be available to be exercised. But, he power under Section 528 of BNSS would be available to quas- the proceedings provided the same is placed on record along 'l pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for ith the requisite such quashment is set up.

9. ln the case on hand, the charge sheet is, already filed and cognizance is taken, but the writ petition is filed c rly under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. Thus, the case is ;quarely covered by the facts in Neetha Singh's case (2 supra) He rce. by applying the same analogy, the writ petition under Art :le 226 of the 5 EfO,J vt/,P. No.1/005 0t ?025 Constitution is not maintainable and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed

10. ln the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is not precluded from pursuing his remedies through appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secnk+rcen

1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at To Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI R.S.SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies SALS .rw /: I' i I rLii ffi HIGH COURT DATED:1811112025 ORDER WP.No.17806 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. QA- LL \2) ,f