IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Judge, J
Petitioners – Appellant
Versus
Respondents 6 to 9 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek writ of mandamus. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondents argue against quashing fir. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on fir validity and jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 4. court can quash fir even after charge sheet. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. court quashes proceedings and allows petition. (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners to issue a writ of mandamus (i) to declare the action of respondents 4 and 5 in registering the Crime No.114 of 2021 on the file of PS Ramachandrapuram against the petitioners as violative of their fundamental rights and contrary to the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5474 of 2020 and Crl.P.No.5561 of 2020 dated 12.02.2021 and 18.03.2021 respectively and to quash the same, (ii) the action of respondents 4 and 5 in arresting and remanding the petitioners 2 and 3 is violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , [(2014) 8 SCC 273] and to initiate appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5 and (iii) to declare the action of respondents 2, 4 and 5 in inter
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra
Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Limited
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.