##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

WRIT PETITION No.21263 of 2024

DATED: 19^TH DECEMBER, 2025

Between

Dr. M. Suresh Kumar DHMS and two others …Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana

rep. by DGP and three others …Respondents

O R D E R

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri M. Srinivas,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted

that the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India challenging the registration of the FIR

and that, subsequently, the Police have filed the charge sheet;

therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Hence,

while praying to close this Writ Petition, he relied upon a

decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal

##PAGE2##

2

Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and another¹ wherein it

was held at Paragraph No.8 that:

“8. However, from the preamble of the writ petition

filed by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court,

it is evident that the same sought to invoke the twin

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and

Section 528 of the BNSS for having the FIR quashed.

It is true that the police report (charge-sheet) had

been filed on 14th May, 2025 upon completion of

investigation of the FIR, but whether or not

cognizance had been taken by the jurisdictional

magistrate is not too clear from the impugned order

extracted above. So long cognisance of the offence is

not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-

sheet could be issued under Article 226; however,

once a judicial order of taking cognizance intervenes,

the power under Article 226 though not available to be

exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was

available to be exercised to quash not only the

FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking

cognisance, provided the same is placed on record

along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same

and a strong case for such quashing is set up.

Significantly, it was reasoned by us in Neeta Singh

(supra) that a judicial order not being amenable to

challenge before a high court under Article 226 of the

Constitution and there being no prayer either under

Article 227 thereof or Section 482, Cr. PC, the

Allahabad High Court was right in holding the writ

petition under Article 226 to have been rendered

infructuous.”

02. In response to the submissions advanced by

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, Sri D. Suresh

Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of

1 Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 13424/2025

##PAGE3##

3

this Court to withdraw the present Criminal Petition, with liberty

to file an appropriate petition challenging the charge sheet.

03. Recording the aforesaid submission, permission is

accorded.

04. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as

withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioners to file an

appropriate petition challenging the charge sheet, if advised so.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

__________________

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

Date: 19-DEC-2025

KHRM

##PAGE4##

4

##PAGE5##

5

##PAGE6##

6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

4858

WRIT PETITION No.21263 of 2024

Date: 19-DEC-2025

KHRM

Click Here to Read the rest of this document