Dismissed

Durgam Laxman v. State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC23 Nov 2021WP/12204/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel police to register a complaint and investigate the disappearance of his daughter. The Court directed police that the victim had been located; finding no need for further orders, the petition was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of as a result of letters conveyed to the Court, with no orders issued against the police as the missing person was already traced. No costs.

Durgam Laxman Vs State of Telangana and 2 others — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST oo;;,,i 3.I5,3i l5l$S,*f^{Ar HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWE rwo rHo uIIII lfl S,,"fftlo FxovE MB ER

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

Between:

¶6

RIT ETI toN NO. 122 oF 202

¶7

Qurgarq^{Laxman,S/o Banaiah,} Age about 55 vears. -cisie^{sQ r 1rii1'frbrrii, "ni'ivo z-112l3,Narsinga;;tei,o,,ifJ3,"$fl1"#Biilx1yl,i:} 504204 (TS)' Mancherial District

¶8

...pETrroNER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 3:*"ii..lr?]iif.Tg'o:31^{o, its Principal Secretary, Home Department relansana}

¶11

2 The Station House Officer, Golkonda pS.. Hvderabad. 3 The Sector Sub-lnspector, Shaikpet sector, Golkonda pS., Hyderaba$bOar,

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IVANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in not registering the complaint of the Petitioner Dated.1210312021 rcceived by the Respondent No.3 on 1310312021 at 4.53 pm. About the missing and wrongful confinement of Petitioners second Daughter by name Durgam Supriya from the Reddy Womans Hostel, Shaikpet, Hyderabad and not tracing where abouts of Petitioners Daughter^whether alive or dead is illegal, arbitrary and against the^principles of natural^{justice andalso} against Articles 14, 19and 21 of the constitution of^{lndia and consequently direct the} Respondent no.3 to register a case upon the^{Complaint of the Petitioner} Dated.12l04l2O21 by tracing out the Second^{daughterof the petitionerDurgam} Supriya whether alive or dead.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High courtmaybe pleased to directthe} Respondent no.3 to complete^{the investigation withina stipulated timeto tracethe} second daughter of the^{petitioner Durgam Supriya whetherAlive or Dead'}

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{M/S. P. LALITHAKAMESH}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:^{AGP FOR HOME}

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

W'P' No'^{12204 of 2021}

¶19

Order:

¶20

Ilearcllcart-redc<>unsellcrrthcpctidoncr:rrldle:rrtlr-d'\s-tist:ltlt (lovernnrct'rt 1)lclrdcr Ft>r I iornc appcarirlq lirr^{ri.rc rcsporltlc rlrs'}

¶21

'l'l-rc gri,-,r iincr oi the pe dtrri cr is that 1tr-,lic,' itrt,, t ttr,t c()ll!l'.lct('d iur csttgrrliort c'rl hi; conrplairlt^{cllrctl 12()32(i2 l.ttL''ir'tltti' rlls'tnll t'i} I'ris secencl dan;rhtcr /zi'.,^{L)urgamSLtpriva,* ilt.' t rls sla\ 1lls- irr lltdd"} Women's I Iosre l at Sharkpet,^'li.,li Chor.vk.

¶22

Learned ,r,ssistant^{(]or-erttment} Pleader lor []omc^{h,rs placcd or-r} record, lctter da.ted 05.06.2021, addressed by the Inspcctor of Policc, Golkonda Policr: Station, to the petitioner informir.rg him tl.rat enquincs urere made bv them; they found phone number oi Supriya tlrrcush tlrc peirtlxrcr'-s clclr:r daLrghtcr; tl-Iev contactcd Supriva alrc rhc' \'crc intirrmcd thet s lrc got marricd tt.r onc -'\clamalli \arcnclr r. rcsidcnL { )i lJhimirlararrr.^,.r !.o is rrorkrne as a Bank \lanlucr. ir is tlrrrhcr strrt..rl tl-rcrcin tha: :trpnr,ir sus ilsliccl [o c()fite to thc l)olicc Stlnon lirr' ri-c(irding her stlitcrncr-r',. btrt shc rni,>nrrcd ti-rat shc,is 1tr'cgrran t end dtie to^(l()'11)- l9 -silurrtior'i. shc cannor colnc r() thc l)olicc Station.

¶23

[n r.icrv ol'the ir.cr r]rat thc cietails of Sr-rpriva, sccond dauehtcr oi rhe petitioncr x,crc i<lrnii bv the police and hcr phonc nr-rmbcr rs aiso traced, this Cour:i is r-rf thc opinion that no furtl-rer ordcrs are lleccssar,.

¶24

l,ctrcr detcd 05.0(.2021 , is handed (),cr [o learned counscl fcrr rhcr Pr.ritioncr br Ie :rrncd .\ssistant ( ior.cntmtrnt l)lcaclcr firr I lomc. 6. llccrirdltg rltc.s:rntc, [iir I)ctjriorr is cirspo-scri o( .\s a scqr:r,1. \liscellancous I)ctrrions. pcniirng ii anr.. stan<l

¶25

dismisscd.

¶26

SD/.K,SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,ll -- SECTION SFFICER

¶27

\ To, 1. The Principal secretary,^{Home Department,state of Telangana Telangana} Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Station Hiluse^{Officer, Golkonda PS., Hyderabad.} 5. fne SJCtoiSub-inspector,^{Shaikpet sector, Golkonqq PS', Hvderabad'} +. one cC to rrlls.^{P. Lalitha Kamedh,Advocate} [oPUCl 6. iil ccsio^{eF tor riril6,'iiigh cciirt-torir,e state of'Teransana at Hyderabad.} tourl 6. Two CD Copies.

¶28

One SPare^CoPY.

MP
ptp{
CJ,

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2311112021

ORDER

WP.No.12204^{ot 2021}

¶34

1 {E STAr€
/:.4|ot t
l)
a
o
02 trEC2$?1
\o
'i:'r, ^ +./
{ --:_j;J'o1-,q"41ct: -.,'/

¶35

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶36

<br>CJ

Durgam Laxman v. State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgam Laxman v. State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irfan Khan Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

C. Keerthana Vs The State of Telangana

Veeramalla Narsimha Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Vippala Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

Vunnam Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

K.Veereshwar Vs The State of Telangana