THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus annulling the entire gamut of process in pursuance of the proceedings in CC No.2578 of 2024 in Crime No.1318 of 2024 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge cum X Additional Judicial Magistrate of first class Medchal-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 the respondent No.3-de facto 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 de facto complainant to withdraw the proceedings against her. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegations are false in nature and the police are hand-in-glove with the de facto complainant and have recorded the statements of witnesses on the same night immediately after registration of crime at about 10.00 PM. He further submitted that earlier the petitioner was in live-in- relationship with the de facto complainant and after she left his society, the de facto complainant filed a suit for recovery of money and also filed the present complaint bearing grudge against the petitioner with all false allegations and that no notice was given to her while taking cognizance in the case.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable because the charge sheet is filed and CC is numbered as 2578 of 2024 and thus, a writ petition is not maintainable in such cases for seeking a direction of Mandamus to annul the proceedings. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Responding to the said contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court has ample powers to convert the writ petition into a quash petition and dispose of the same.

6. Perused the record.

7. In 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.2578 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 another, [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875], wherein a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 528 of BNSS was presented by the petitioner therein before the High Court of Bombay. In 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., [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13578 of 2024], the petition for quashing the FIR after filing of charge sheet becomes infructuous. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court 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 India while the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure was not invoked and the cognizance of offence had been taken by the relevant criminal court. In the said circumstances, the Apex Court has upheld the order passed by the Allahabad High Court wherein it was held that the writ petitio