Telangana High Court
Sidda Anil vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION NO.8934 of 2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with the following prayer:
"The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records
about General Diary/ Station Diary/ Daily Diary/ CCTV Footage related to Crime No
212 of 2025 dated 05/02/2025 of P.S. Gachibowli i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the
Proceedings No. 24/Cr /MP2/Cyberabad/2025 dated 05/02/2025 issued by
Respondent No. 7 by declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 on the
submitted representations dated 14/02/2025 made by the party / interested person
as illegal contrary and un constitutional as the official Respondents failed to follow
the criminal law that though Accused arrested on 05/02/2025 night around 8 to 9 P
M but the official Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 colluded with each other and produced
the Accused before the magistrate on 07/02/2025 at 2 00 P.M. by duly suppressing
the facts before the Hon'ble Court sent for judicial custody is nothing but abuse of
power and abuse of process of law as above things is purely illegal arbitrary and in
violation of fundamental rights of Accused and consequently quash the registered
FIR Proceedings against the Petitioner / sole accused in Crime No 212 of 2025
dated 05/02/2025 for the offences U/Sec 3762n 420 506 of IPC on the file of P.S.
Gachibowli, Cyberabad District in the interest of justice."
2. I have heard Mr. Ponampelli Ravi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for
Home for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7.
2 NTR,J
WP_8934_2025
3. The petitioner is sole accused in Crime No.212 of 2025 for
the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 506 of IPC of
Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad District.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de
facto complainant had foisted a false case to recover the
amounts. Thus the civil litigation has been given colour of
criminal complaint. He further asserts that an year ago the de
facto complainant got issued legal notice for recovery of amount
which was suitably replied, however, without exploring possible
civil remedies with an ulterior motive the present complaint has
been foisted. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged
sexual assault is baseless and the relationship if any is
consensual. He further argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
catenae of judgments has held that the consensual physical
relationship would not amount to an offence within the scope of
Section 376 of IPC and quashed the prosecution as abuse of
process. He further submits that the Sessions Court had granted
bail and on his appearance before the police concerned, in
compliance of the bail condition, the police are insisting for
settlement of the case beyond their jurisdiction. To establish
these aspects he is seeking CCTV footage and even direction to
3 NTR,J
WP_8934_2025
the concerned for departmental action against them. Thus
prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus and quash the first
information report proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Home would submit that
the police report lodged by the de facto complainant/victim is
specific against the petitioner and the investigation has revealed
that the petitioner enticed the de facto complainant in the name of
marriage not only sexually exploited but also swindled more than
Rs.60,00,000/-, sexually exploited her and later denied marriage
and threatened her and her brother with dire consequences.
Further the investigation is under progress and the investigating
agency concerned is likely to file charge sheet. Therefore, the
prayer for quashment cannot be sustained. That apart, the other
contested aspects are unrelated and cannot be considered for
quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner. Hence in
the given stage of investigation the prayer is not maintainable and
accordingly prayed for dismissal.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel and perused the materials on record.
7. The first information statement of the de facto complainant
is specific against the petitioner about the physical and financial
4 NTR,J
WP_8934_2025
exploitation under the promise of marriage. The pleadings of the
petitioner that exchange of notices and the admitted issues
between them for recovery of amount and consensual nature of
relationship pleaded are prima facie making out that the petitioner
and the de facto complainant had the situations referred in the
police report. Further as per the investigating agency/respondent
No.5 i.e. Gachibowli Police is in the process of investigation they
could secure the materials supporting the allegations in the police
report and against the petitioner. That being the factual position,
no legally acceptable ground is found for positively considering
the prayer of the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner claimed
affair in the police station is not supported by any material. Even
otherwise, at any stretch, it cannot be a ground for quashment of
crime against the petitioner. Nonetheless, the petitioner asserted
incidents in the police station would be an independent cause of
action for which the petitioner may avail appropriate remedies
under law. Hence, without determination of relevant facts and
pending the crime proceedings against the petitioner seeking
direction from this Court for action would be ex facie not
maintainable. Thus the prayer in the writ petition fails on merit, in
effect it is liable to be dismissed.
5 NTR,J
WP_8934_2025
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date:23.04.2025
ccm
