1. B. Madhavi v. 1. The State of Telangana

...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 any writ, order or direction Inore particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Police in registering the FIR No. 866/2016 offence Uls 42O lPC, 3 (1 ) (R) of SG and ST (POA) Act, 201 5 dated 1 1- 122016, P.S. Rachakonda, R.R. District as is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently quash the proceedings therein vide FIR No. 866/2O'16 offence Uls 42O lPC, 3 (1) (R) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 2015 dated 11-12-2016, P.S. Rachakonda, R.R. District in the ir*erest of justice- Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the proce,sdings including arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 866/2016 offence Uts 42O IPC;, 3 (1) (R) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 2015 dated 1112-2016, P.S. Rachakonda, R.R. District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Between: Dhanraj Manoj Kumar, S/o Dhanraj, Aged about 37 years, Occ unemployee R/o H. No. 42-547/U1, Green Hills Colony, Road No.2, Moula Ali, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/R4

1. B. Madhavi, Wo B. Uday Bhaskar, Aged about 42years, Occ housewife R/o Plot No. 189, Laxminagar, Dammaiguda, Hyderabad.

2. Q. Ulery Bhaskar, S/o B. Ramanna, Aged about 52 years, Occ Pvt employee, R/o Plot No. 189, Laxminagar, Dammaiguda, Hyderabad ... RESPONDE NTS/PETITION E RS

3. The State of Department, Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Home Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District, - 5. The Station l'louse Officer, Police Station Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the inlerim orders passed in WP.No.1 1698 of 2017 dated 3.4.2017. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Gounsel for the Respondents No.lto3 : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY,AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI V.R.REDDY KOWURI The Court made the following: ORDER i i i ;l l' I I . i I ! I I I J ,l ;i l t 'i ; ri,i I I T l:.\ 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JIISTICT N.TIIKARAMJI WRIT PEIITION 11698 0D 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is liled under Article 226 of C-onstitutiorr of India seeking the following relief/s:- '... to issue any wrig order or direction more particularly one in tbe nanue of writ of Ivlandamrs declaring ttre action of the Police in registering the FIR No. 866/2016 offerrce lJ/s 4N PC' 3 (1) ($ of SC and ST (POA) Acr, 2015 daed ll-L22016, P.S. Rachakond4 R-R. Distric as is arbitrary, ftg"|, unjusg in violation of principbs of nattual iustice and inrrblatiion of Anicle 14 and 21 of the Corsdnrtion of India and conseque"df grrth th. proceedings therein vide FIRNo.86l,/20L6 offence U/s 420 Pq 3 (1) (R) if SC *iSf eOO Acr, 2015 datd LL-L2-2015, P.S. Rachalsonda" RR District in the interest of justice and pass..... ."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitionen and Mr.Rla:<mikanth Reddy, leamed Assisant Government Pleader for Ftrome appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. karned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, aggrieved by the registration of Crime I{o.875 of. 2016, the present petition has been filed by the accused seeking quashment of the said proceedings.

4. karned fusistant Government Pleader for Llonre submiued that the crime was registered against the petitionen forthe offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sectien" ) f(1)@ of the Scheduled Casres and Scheduled Tribes @revention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken cognizance of and numberc<l as S.C No.7 of 2Ol9 on the file of the C-ourt of the MI Additional Sessions Judge, L.B. Nrg*. It was further submitted that since the petitionen,/accused have not been available for trial, non-bailable wamrnrs are pending against thern In such circumstances, seeking the extraoridinary rcmedy of quashment is whollyimproper and liable to be rejected.

5. I have penued the rnaterial available on record. 6, The contention of the pedtionen is that the crime was registered vdthout any basis. However, the fact remains ttnt the investigation has culminated in the filing of a charge sheet, and the C-ouft concemed, after due corsideration, has taken cognizance of tlre offences. Upon satisfaction that prima facie materid exiss, the Sessions (hse has been registered for trial. This iaelf indicates drat the Court concemed has fotrnd that triable issues arise on the basis of the marierial placed before it. In such a siruation, the prapr for 3 quashment of proceedings on rhe ground that the crime was registered without basis cannor be srstained

7. That apatt, as pointed out by the respondent/police, non- bailable warranrs are pending against the petitioners, who have absconded from rhe judicial process. It is now a well-setded principle of law that an accused udro keeps himself evayfrcm due process' cannor be permined ro involre rhe extraorrdinary jurisdiction of this Coun under Article 226 of the C-onstittrtion of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the crime proceedings. In view of the above, the prapr of the petitioners for quashment is found to be untenable and unconvincing

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shdl be no toroer as to costs. Miscellaneous Peritions, pending rt *y,shdl rr*d closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD'.A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECNON OFFICER 1- one cc to SRI KATTKA RAVTNDER REDDY, Advocate. topucl 2. One CC to SRt V.R.REDDY KOWUR|, Advocate. tOpUCl 3. Two ccs to GP.FoR HOME, High court forthe state of retangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

4. Two CD Copies. BSK %- l i i I ! i i I I I t , : I I I HIGH COURT N a a 5 I I f I 3 S (., 2 4 JAt{ 2026 trJ * I .l ORDER !! WP.No.1{698 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0 L