Disposed

M.Raghavendra v. The State of Telangana and 13 others

Telangana HC16 Dec 2021WP/31785/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 and a misc petition under Section 151 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to transfer a criminal investigation for land disputes to a different station, the Court closed the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to seek remedies via a protest petition filing in the Court below or other available legal remedies, without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed at the stage of admission without costs; petitioner directed to file protest petition or avail other remedies under law.

M.Raghavendra Vs The State of Telangana and 13 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3'17 85 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.Rag^havendra, .s/o lr,4.Baraji, Aged about 31 years, occ. Business Resident of H.No.6-94, Chandanagar, Hydernagar, Hyderabad.'

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Home.2epartment, Secretariat Secretariat Building, Hyderabad Rep. by its Principal Secretary

¶11

2 The Director General of Police, Government of Telangana Saifabad, Hyderabad a Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Kukatpally 4 Special Operation Team, Cyberabad, Hyderabad Telangana state

¶12

5 The Station House Officer, Bachupally police station Ranga Reddy District

¶13

6 The Sub-lnspector of Police, Bachupally police Station Ranga Reddy District 7 Ponu€anti.Ra.m-esh, S/o Surya prakash Rao, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Doctor, PJo. Plot No.4-96, ABN Towers, Sy.No.102, Ma-dhuranagar, (J izampet, Hyderabad.

¶14

8 [,Nypynyq, W/o Ponugupati Rame,s.h, Aged about 37 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o. Plot No.4-96, ABNTbwers, Sy.No.t-02, Madhuran'agar,'ruiijmpef^--' Hyderabad.

¶15

!An! Kumar, S/o. Prabhakar-Rao, Aged about 39 years, Occ.Business, Rl/o. Siripuram Post, fvladhira lr/andallKhammam, fetangani.

¶16

D. Vishnuvardhan, S/o. D.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ.Business, Ryo. H. No.3-6-476, H imayathnagar, Hydera-bad.

¶17

11.G.D Narayan-Raju_, S/o. Sri Rama Raju, Aged about 50 years, Occ.Business, Fl/o. Flat No.207, Srinikethan Apartments,-Ameerpet, HyaeraOaO.^{- - -----'}

¶18

l2.Padmavathi, W/o. D.Narayana Raju, Aged about 49 years, Occ.Doctor, R/o. Plot No.417, Vivekan'anda Ndgar eotony, Kukati,aily,'Hra;;b;ij.^'

¶19

Bagyir ^Laxmi W/o. D.lMahesh Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ.Household, F/o. 3-6-476, Himayathnagar, Hydeiaba-d.

¶20

l4.Saraswathi, Wo. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ.Household, R/o. Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar Distrl-ct.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 or order or direction one more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 5 and 6 in not conducting investigation in FIR No.575/2020 dated 19.9.2020, on the file of sth respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, u ncon stitutiona I and consequenfly direct to entrust

¶23

.,t FtR NO. 57512020^{date j 1g.g.2020to 4th respondentto conductthe investigation} into the crime

¶24

IA NO: 10F²⁰²¹

¶25

PetitionunderS.,ction.l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircurnstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in sut cort of the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto issue} directiontoentrustFIlNo.STSof2o2odt.lg.og.2o20onlhefileofthe5th respondentpolicestaionto4threspondenttoconductinvestigationpending disposal of the^writ Peti^ion.

¶26

Counsel for^{the Petitiorer: SRI' SRIKARUNAKARKOMMIREDDY}

¶27

Counsel for^{the Respordent Nos'1 to 6: AGP FOR HOME}

¶28

Counsel for^{the RespcrdentNos'7 lo 14: NONE APPEARED}

¶29

The Court^{at the stageof admissionmadethe following:ORDEII}

¶30

HONOURAI}LE SRI^{JUSI'ICEB' VI.IAYSEN REDDY} \YI{I'I'PEl'ITION^{No.31785OF 2021}

¶31

ORDER^(ORI,):

¶32

Heard Sri Srikarunakar^{Kommireddy,leamed counselfor the} petitioner, and learned^{Assistant GovernmentPleaderfor Horne' and} perused the material on^record.

¶33

It is submitted^{that complaint was lodged by the petitioner} underSection200oltheCodeofCrirninalProcedure,l9T3(forshort 'Cr.P.C.') before^{the learnedI1 Additional} 'lunior^{Civil Judge cum X} Additional Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Kukatpally, C'yberabad'lt was} referred to respondent^{No.5 - the Station flouse Off-rcer'Bachupally} Police Station,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict underSection156(3)of Cr'P'C'} ancl consequently^{a casewas registeredin Crime No'575 of 2020} dated 19.09.2020^{lor the olfences punishable under Sections 420' 447} ' 468, 47 1read^{with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code'1860 (for} short 'lPC').^{In the cornplaint, the petitionerallegedthat himself and} one G. Siva^{Hari Prasad are owners of Plots bearing Nos.88, 89 and} 90^(part) in^{Survey No'102admeasuring962 squareyards situatedat} Nizampet^{Village,Bachupally Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District'} On 03.09.2020^{at about l2'00 hours, respondent Nos'7to l4 came to} rhe subject^{lands, trespassedinto the same andthreatenedtlie} petitioners. On^{thecomplaint ol thepetitioner' the} Sub Inspector^{ol' Police, BachupallyPolice Station'RangaReddy} District, has^{taken up investigationLle hasexamined witnessesand}

¶34

¶35

recorded their^r etailed statements. He has^{also made a .eqllestto the} Sub Registrar )ffice, Medchal fbr^{lurnishingcertified copies of the} sale deeds in re ;pect ol the subject propeny and obtained^{the salne.}

¶36

(i) Duri rg investigatior.r, it rvas lbLrnd that as per the .iudgntent in O.S. No.75' of 2007, it was revealed that accused persons have been in prior rossession of the subject land. S,'hen ;ome persons trespassed an( damaged the property of respondent Nos.7 to 14 (accused in F i,R. No.575 ot'2020 dated 19.09.2020). a case was registered in C'ime No.66 of 2008 with Kukatpalll Police Station tbr the offences pr nishable under Sections 447,,427 and 506 oflPC.

¶37

(ii) It s submitted that the petitioners and sorne others are involved in Cr me No.504 of 2020 for the offences purrishable r.rnder Sections 447,427 and 506 read with Section 34 ol IPC, wherein investigation^, zas completed and charge sheet r.i as fll:d in the said case against t re petitioners and others and trial is pending in C.C. No.2124 of 2t 21 on the flle of the learned X Adclitional Metlopolitan Sessions Judg, , Kukatpally.

¶38

(iii) Tl e petitioner, in flact, filed suit in O.S. No.26 ol 202 I before the le Lrned XVI Additional District .ludge. Ranga Reddy District at Ma <a.igiri.

¶39

(iu) In Clime No.575 of 2020, investigation r,,as cornpleted. permission w -s taken lrorr the Assistant Conrmissiorrer ol Police, Kukatpally D vision, Cyberabad, vide proceedings^'\o. l36l/ACP-

¶40

KP/CYB/2021 dated 31.10.202 l, ro r-eler rhe case as'false'. After serving notice to the complainanr through post on 02.12.2021, trnal reporl u,as liled under Section I73 ol Cr.P.C. as 'false' was filed on 02.12.20? I befbre thc Iearned II Addirional Junior Civil Judge cum X Additional Nlctropolitan Magistrate. Kukarpally, Cyberabad vide IW No.7589 of 202 1

¶41

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that if the petitioner has any grievance regarding filing of final report, he rnay be directed to file protest petition before the concerned Court.

¶42

In view o1'the fact that closure report has been filed treating the case as t'alse, this Court does not have any other option except to permit the petitioner to avail remedies available under law either by liling protest petition before the Couft concerned or to avail any other remedies available under law.

¶43