Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Mohammed Mujahid Uddin Siddique & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 194 of 2022
Decided On : 17-05-2022
Article 32 - Quashing of FIR - The petition seeks quashing of FIR No.59 of 2022 dated 18.02.2022 registered with Police Station Town-I, Nizamabad, District Nizamabad, Telangana, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners relied on a notice to argue that the petition under Article 32 is the only appropriate remedy available to them.
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 32 seeks quashing of FIR No.59 of 2022 dated 18.02.2022 registered with Police Station Town-I, Nizamabad, District Nizamabad, Telangana.
Finding of the Court:
The Court issued notice only to the Registrar General of the High Court, returnable on 20.05.2022, and permitted Dasti service. The Registry of the Court is directed to send a copy of the order electronically to the Registrar General of the High Court. Liberty is granted to serve the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Issues: The main issue is the quashing of FIR No.59 of 2022 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision is based on the reliance on Article 32 as the appropriate remedy for seeking the quashing of the FIR.
Final Decision: The Court issued notice to the Registrar General of the High Court and permitted Dasti service, directing the Registry to send a copy of the order electronically to the Registrar General of the High Court, and granted liberty to serve the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
ORDER
1. The present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India essentially seeks quashing of FIR No.59 of 2022 dated 18.02.2022 registered with Police Station Town-I, Nizamabad, District Nizamabad, Telangana. Relying on Notice dated 30.04.2022 under the caption "Instructions as to filing of cases to be heard during Summer Vacation Court on 05.05.2022", it is submitted that the petitioners can not go before the Vacation Bench of the High Court and as such, the instant petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is the only appropriate remedy available to him.
2. At the oral request of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Registrar General of the High Court is added as one of the parties to the petition.
3. At this stage we issue notice only to the Registrar General of the High Court, returnable on 20.05.2022.
4. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
5. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order electronically to the Registrar General of the High Court.
6. Liberty is granted to serve Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India provides the basis for seeking the quashing of the FIR in this case.
Availability of an efficacious remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as a factor in determining the court's jurisdiction under Article 32.
Relief sought to quash and set aside criminal proceedings/FIR should be considered by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and not by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Ind....
The court's power to issue notice and provide interim protection to the petitioner pending the outcome of the writ petition.
Delay in FIR registration must adhere to Section 154 of Cr.P.C. as affirmed in Lalita Kumari case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
