M/s The Lucifer Restaurant v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-17. M/s The Lucifer Restaurant v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[ 3488 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL NO: 435 OF 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against Order Dated 1910212026 in WP No 5153 of 2026 on the file of the High Court Between: 1. M/s The Lucifer Restaurant, Rep by its Froprietor Mr D Lekhraj Yadav having its office at 6th Floor Grand Vistara Towers H. No 631086ruGT/60, Rajbhavan road Somajiguda Hyderabad Telangana 500082 2. D Lekhraj Yadav, S/o D Jaiveer Yadav Age 36 years,Occ. Business R/o Flat No 204 Aditya Monarch Apartment Camelot Layout Ranga Reddy District, TelanQana 500 084 ... APPELLANTS AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Telangana 2.
The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Police, Office Command and Control Centre Telangana Police Road No 12 Bhavani Nagar Banjara Hills Hyderabad Telangana -500034 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, DCP Office, Khairatabad Zone Fateh Maidan Abids Hyderabad Telangana 500457. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, ACP Office Panjagufta Division Panjagutta X Road lnfront of Hyderabad Central Mall- 500082. 5. Sub lnspector of Police, Panjagutta, PS Greenlands Road Panjagutta, Hyderabad- 500082. ... RESPONDENTS Counset for the Appetlant : SRI OMAR A PASHA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MAHESH RAJE, GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ; i I I I t t t ( tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE oFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THf, CHIEFJUSTICE SRI APA RESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI ruSTICE G. M. MO. HIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No. 435 of 2026 Dated: 17. 04. 2026 Between: IWs. The Lucifcr Restaurant and another. .. ,Appellants and The State olTelangana, Rep.
by its Principal Secretary, Home Departrnent, Telangana, and 4 others. ... Respondents JUDGMENT: Learned counsel Sri Omar A. Pasha appears for the appcllants. Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for [{ome, appears for the respondents. , I I I I I i I 2 2. The present writ appeal arises out of the judgment dated 19. 02. 2026 passed by the learned writ court dismissing w. p. No. Sl53 of 2026 filed by the appellants. 3. The writ petition was preferred with the following prayer: "lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandarnus stopping the Respondent No. 5 from registering or repeatedly initiating proceedings against petitioner No. 2 and his employees under Sections223 and275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita along with Sections of the COTPA Act since this action by the Respondent No.
5 herein is illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and contrary to a catena ofjudgments rnore specifically judgment dated 05. 07. 2021in Criminal Petition No. l52 of 2020 and batch and in Criminal Petition No. 56l9 of 2020 and batch dated 10. 06. 2Q22 and consequently direct the Respondents to act strictly in accordance with settled legal principles and to refrain from initiating wrongful proceedings against the Petitioners and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court mhy deem fit and proper in the ii-rterest ofjustice. " 4. The learned. writ court held the writ petition to be not maintainable, since a case has already been filed in respect of F. I. R. No. l00 of 2026 on I 1. 02. 2026. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the prayer was to direct the police authorities not to file any more First Information Reports under Section 223 and 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with other sections of the cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.
However, the learned writ court, perhaps, could not 1 appreciate the nature of the relief prayed for and dismissed the writ \ petition being guided by the institution of one F. I. R. No. r00 of 2026. ry r _/ 6. However, we are of the view that the writ appeal under Clause t5 of the Letters Patent jurisdiction of this court is not maintainable against the subject matter and relief connected with criminaljurisdiction. 7. Therefore, the instant writ appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, iIany, shall stand closed. SD/. I( AMMAJI EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . One CC to SRI OMAR A PASHA, Advocate. [O 2 Two ccs to GP FoR HOME, High court for the state of relangana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI 3 Two CD Copies. BSK GJP v \_ I HIGH COURT DATEDi 1710412026 { ti. E :i'IA ,t C, ra- ,,. ) 0 5 t{N 2026 Lr] \ JUDGMENT * * o. 'lf r: a '- J I l-i WA. No.
435 oi 2026 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *K ri t I . r:'iiiSinr+. -H .. iffi-I;. #
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.