High Court · 2025

3 Asadi Sai Pavan, s/o. Asadi Srinivasa Reddy, Age 27, Occu Prtvate Employee, R/o. H. No. 5-6-84/1, Sangeet Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, 500072 ,..PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 The State of Telangana, Department of Home, Rel by Princip^g.!^S^e^cretary Telangana Secreta-riat, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana 500022 Market Police Station, Rep by. Station House Officer, Hyderabad City Police, Hyderabad, Telangana 500003 Hvderabad Police Commissionerate, Rep by. Hyderabad City Police C6mmissioner, O/o Commissioner of Poiice, Tower-A, ICCC Building, Road No 12, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad, 500034 Smt. L- G. Mukeshwari Yadav, Wo. Late L Gyaneshwar Yadav, Age 43 yrs, R/o H. No. 1435/4 Trimulgherry, Risala Bazai, Bolaram, Secunderabad, 500010. Phone. 90301 12355 ...RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, Direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus. 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit herein, it t is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to declare the conversion of civil issue into a criminal case as an illegal act, devoid of merits by concerned police, as such, QUASH the FIR and all subs: FIR No. (67 of 2025, Dl. 23.04.2025, on file of Market Pol ( City Police, on file of XXll Additional Chief Judicial lvlagistr r against all petitioners/accused as the said FIR is untenat frivolous, malicious and is abuse of process of law and cor all records of the responding State showing the names of 1i in the interest of Justice and fair play 2.f o declare NOT giu to the petitioners for their written reply submission to the 9'1 illegal, arbitrary, and violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Col t case Satendar kumar Antil case read with, and direct Flt Home Dept.) to take measures in 30 days to ensure ackn() to the accused/witnesses as the case may be, that it is t appearance/written replies submitted to the lnvestigation Cf other others as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit 3-To cons r 1,00,000 (one lakh rupees) on the defacto-complainant for 'i complaint and converting Civil issue into criminal issue I mental agony on the petitioners causing trauma and f t under the mandate of Section 273 of BNSS 2023 Ior i process of law 4.To consider imposing a cost of 50, 000 ( on the lnspector of police of Market Police Station (Statior for filing an FIR in a civil issue (which may be deducted frc same may be deposited to the High Court Legal Services the said action of the Telangana police of coriverting Ci/ cases is rampant in the State, as also the SHO is facing proceedings for violation of orders of this Hon'ble court in :;i the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in case [V z State Of Telangana on 'lB July, 2025 Judgement. luent proceedings in : Station, HYderabad e, at Secunderabad), e in the eye of law, ;equentially Expunge a petitione rs/accused ng acknowledgement and 35 (3) notices as of lndia in Orders in spondent No. I (PS uledgments are given randatory to give for icer a and issue such er imposing a cost of ing a false, imaginary rd inflicting immense ancial repercussions rd ulging in abuse of ifty thousand rupees) louse Officer - SHO) n his salary) and the \uthority (HCLSA) as I issues into criminal he contempt of court me FIR quash and in la Choud hary vs The lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the t;i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr ay be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the arrest of the petition,: s and appearance of the petitioners FIR No. (67 ot 2025, DL.23.04.2025, or file of Market Police 6 '1. + ,l + 'l 1. r1 4i .t {d 1,, 6 i + q, I Station,HyderabadCityPolice)'onfileofXXllAdditionalChrefJudicial Magistrate, at Secunderabad), pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VIJAY GOPAL Counsel for the Respondents No'1to3 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No'4 : The Court made the following: ORDER -- 6 6 4| (1 i' t {" 6 o I THE HONOURABLE wRl S RI JUSTTCE N. TUKARA PETtTloN No .2 1823o{ T lJt -w **'. writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the rl >nstrtution of lndia with the following reliefs: "to rssue an appropriate Writ Directron or Order more pad: larly one ln the nature of wrrt of Mandamus (1) For the reasons stated in r ) affidavit hereln it is therefore prayed that this Hon ble Court may be plees )d to declare the conversion of clvll lssue lnto a crlminal case as an ll )1 al aci devoid of merits by concerned polrce' as sucl QUASH the FIF I d all subsequent proceedrngs in FIR Nc 67 ol 2C25 dated 23 A42A2t cl Market Police Station Hyderabad City Pollce on the flle of XXll Add'r nal Chief Judictal Magrstrate at Secunderabad agalnst all petltroners/accr'' s )d as the said FIR ls untenable in the eye ot law' frlvolous' mallclous and I abuse of process expunge arr records of trrr responding state of law and consequentra*y rn the I t resi of Justlce and showrllg the names of the petrtioi'1ers/accused farr play (2) To declare not grvrng acknowledgemenl t the petrtroners for therr wrltten reply submrssron to lhe 94 and 35 (3) nctl ) s as illegal arbltrary and violatlon of the Hon ble Supreme CouTt of lrr(rri ln orders ln case Satendar kumar Antri case i'ead with and drrect R ) poncient No 1 (PS Home Dept') to take measures rn 30 days to ensure ' as the case may be t at it is mandatory to glven to the accused/witnesses lnvestigation Officer )knowledgments give for appearance/wrrtten replies submitted to lf € and issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Cour nay deem frt (3) To I 3 lakn only) on the de conslder lmposrng a cost of Rs 1'00 000/- (Rupees ' facto complarnant for fi'ng a talse rmagrnary compr r )t and conveftrng civil ! 2 NTR..I \\P I [i],r t0tl issue rnto cflminal issue and inflictrng immense mental agony on the petitioners causing trauma and financial repercussions under the mandate of Sectron 273 of BNSS 2023 for rndulgrng rn abuse of process oF law, (4) To consrder rmposrng a cost of Rs 50 0001 (Rupees fifty thousand only) on the lnspector of police of Market Pohce Station House Officer (SHO) for frling an FIR rn a crvil rssue which may be deducted from his salary and the same may be deposited to the High Court Legal Services Authority HCLSA as the sard actron of the Telangana police of converting Civil issues lnto criminal cases is rampant rn the State as also the SHO is facing the contempt of court proceedings for violation of orders of this Hon ble court rn same FIR quash and in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in case [/'lala Choudhary v The State of Telangana on 18 July 2025 Judgment: (5) To pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit. rn the rnterest of JUstice.'

2. Heard Mr. Vijay Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.'1 to 3.

3. lhave considered the materials on record and submissions of the learned counsel

4. Admiftedly, the petitioners had earlier filed Criminal Petition No. 7505 of 2025 seeking quashment of Crime No 67 of 2025 registered at Market Police Station, Hyderabad. Considering the submissions and pleadings made therein, particularly the petitioners' undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, this Court directed the investigating agency to issue notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik \IR ] \\P ]lnt t l0ll Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioners were ft rther granted liberty to approach the Court with an appropriate a rplication for quashment after the investigation culminated in a final rer rrt.

5.. ln the present writ petition, however, the petitione-r contend that despite the aforesaid directions, the investigating agen( ) continues to summon them on multiple occasions and compel them to -emain at the police station for inordinate periods, thereby violating bc,1 r the spirit of this Court's earlier order and the seftled principles g rverning fair investigation. They argue that the absence of a prescribe J timeline for conclusion of investigation, coupled with the lack cf prima facie material against them, renders the continuation ol proceedings oppressive and contrary to law. On this premise, they onc -. again seek quashment of the FIR by invoking the extraordinary juri:;r iction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia.

6. However, this Court finds such recourse legally rr permissible. The relief now sought, quashment of the FlR, is identic;r to the relief earlier pursued in Criminal Petition No. 7505 of 2025 u der Section 528 of BNSS. ln that proceeding, this Court had conscicL sly reserved to the petitioners the right to re-approach upon submissi,) | of the final result. Having elected to invoke the statutory remedy Lrr der Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners cannot simultaneously me i rtain a writ petition under Article 226 for the very same relief. 4 N IR..I wP lt8l.l 20t5

7. The doctrine against parallel proceedings and the principle of judicial discipline restrain a party from re-agitating an issue in a different jurisdiction merely by rephrasing or appending additional prayers, such as compensation.

8. lt is pertinent to note that the petitioners have already initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with this Court's earlier directions. That remedy is an appropriate legal recourse to address grievances arising from violation of judicial orders. Permitting the writ petition to be entertained in these circumstances would amount to allowing the petitioners to circumvent the binding directions issued in the earlier criminal petition, thereby undermining judicial consistency.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that extraordinaiy jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass or override specific remedies already availed under a statutory framework (see State of lJttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86, lJnion of lndia v. T.R. Varma, AIR '1957 SC BB2).

10. ln light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition, in so far as it seeks a writ of mandamus for quashment of the FlR, is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to pursue the remedies already preserved in Criminal Petition No 7505 of SFa..,:, .-oo*- ) \TR I wP 21821 20li 2025, including the right to seek quashment upon su ) nission of the final result

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No ccs s Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall star r closed . JAYASR AS;I ; TANT R //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI VIJAY GOPAL, Advocate. IOPUCI \. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State c 'Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies. BSK BS To, 1 2 3 t' & 6 6 I i + {t' ,I {i {' 6 b + + HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 ORDER WP.No.21823 of 2025 /,.\ ,. :, j t'":ii'-i I L DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 t U f + J v s