Telangana HC: Second Quash Petition Not Maintainable Without 'Changed Circumstances'

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao also noted that a second or repeated attempt to challenge the same chargesheet and criminal proceedings, without any change in circumstances, was not maintainable in law and would amount to abuse of the process of the court. He duly dismissed the criminal petition.

The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Gangula Saidulu, Accused No. 9 in a criminal case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal, seeking quashing of proceedings for criminal trespass, causing damage and criminal intimidation under the IPC. The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. During the hearing of the earlier petition, the relief was restricted to dispensing with his personal appearance before the trial court, and the petition was disposed of accordingly without adjudication on merits.

In the second petition, the accused once again sought quashing of the same chargesheet, contending that the earlier petition was not decided on merits and that the grounds were not argued due to a mistake of counsel.

Vijay Kumar Panuganti, in the second quash petition on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the Supreme Court had held that dismissal or withdrawal of an earlier petition under Section 482 CrPC did not automatically bar a subsequent petition, provided the facts justified such filing, and that the latter petition must be considered on its own merits. He cited the ‘Rafiq case’ to state that the Supreme Court had held that a litigant should not suffer for the mistake or inaction of his counsel and restored an appeal dismissed for default.

The High Court, after examining the record, observed that all the grounds in the second petition were admittedly available at the time of filing of the earlier criminal petition. The petitioner had consciously restricted his prayer and did not invite a decision on merits. There were no changed circumstances shown to justify filing of a fresh quash petition.

Telangana HC Seeks GHMC Report on New Facility After 37 Dogs Evicted from Apartment

A division bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, directed GHMC officials to inspect a newly identified accommodation proposed for housing a group of dogs that were previously located in an apartment flat, and submit a report on its suitability. The bench issued the direction while hearing a writ appeal filed by People for Animals, Hyderabad, an NGO, challenging a January 29, 2026, order of a single judge.

The single judge had disposed of a writ petition filed by Kameshwari Pidaparthi, directing her to shift the dogs from a flat in an apartment within one month, after a complaint filed by her neighbours. The court had made it clear that no further extension would be granted and had permitted GHMC to take appropriate action under the GHMC Act, 1955, if the animals were not relocated within the stipulated time.

Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the division bench. During the hearing, a status report dated February 23, 2026, was submitted based on an assessment by veterinarian Dr Sai Kumar Madupu, who stated that 27 dogs and five puppies are making good physical and psychological progress. The report recommended sterilisation, continued veterinary supervision, and proper nutrition to ensure their long-term well-being.

Appearing in person, Pidaparthi submitted that there were originally 37 dogs in her custody for 13 years and she argued that their barking did not justify seizure. She argued that she had treated the dogs as her family members and they had never harmed anyone.

She alleged that some dogs had died after being removed from her place, due to lack of proper care. She contended that GHMC did not have a dedicated facility to house such animals and maintained that the dogs, which had been with her family for several years, were not strictly stray dogs.

Counsel for the appellant informed the court that the dogs had not been sterilised prior to being shifted and that five had died of parvovirus infection. It was submitted that the affected animals were admitted to a veterinary clinic for treatment and that the remaining dogs had since been vaccinated.

Taking note of the submissions, the division bench directed GHMC officials to inspect the premises and file a report on its suitability for housing the dogs by the next date of hearing. The court also directed the GHMC to produce photographs and videographs of the dogs and puppies housed at the appellant’s facility.

Telangana HC Grants Bail to Maoist Leader Amitabh Bagchi After 16 Years in Prison

The Telangana High Court recently granted bail to Amitabh Bagchi, politburo member of the banned Maoists. He was released from the Cherlapally Central Prison on Friday, bringing to an end his 16-year incarceration.

Bagchi was arrested and sent to prison in 2010. He had earlier been granted default bail by a Sessions Court in 2010 but remained in custody as he was unable to furnish sureties. After the chargesheet was filed, he sought regular bail and was granted relief by the Sessions Court in 2024. Before he could submit sureties, the police challenged the order, leading to its cancellation. Bagchi then approached the High Court.

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi, while allowing the bail plea, made it clear that that bail could only be revoked if there was a breach of conditions or misuse of liberty. The judge described the lower court’s decision as “mechanical.”