Dismissed

K.Venkatesham v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Dec 2021WP/9574/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the 4th respondent's failure to register an FIR and proceed with an investigation regarding a death suspected to be caused by poison. The court found the investigation complete but without a final report yet. No writ was issued.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court if a final/repository report is submitted.

K.Venkatesham Vs The State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA; AT^HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 9574 OF 201 8

¶6

Between:

¶7

K.Venkalesham, S/o Chennaiah, aged about 60 years, parigi Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District

¶8

,.,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of.Telangana, rep. by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad District, Vikarabad

¶12

The Deputy Superintendent of police, Chevella, Vikarabad District

¶13

4 The station House officer, parigi porice station, parigi, Vikarabad District

¶14

L..Manjula, _D/o Ananthaiah, Rl/o Erragaddapalli village, Chevella Mandal, Vikarabad District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction decrarng the action of the 4th respondent in not considering the representations dt.1B-1.r-20.1 6 and 28-2-2017 for registering the crime in FIR No.169/2016 against the sth respondent under section .302 0f cr.p.c nor proceeding with the investigation in the above crime ti, today is iregar, arbitrary and viorative of principres of naturarjustice.

¶17

IA NO :1 oF2018

¶18

Petition under Section -15',t^{cPc praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in suooort or tnu p"t[iJnli;;rH,# courr may be pteased to direct the 4th respondent proceedvvi*, inlir"riigri,""'iiro register the crime against the b"' respondent under S^99tlon 302 ;;-L;.;:b],.ror*,i, by considJrino the representations dt.18-11-201A ana ia-i-.zoii, p"""oirg disposar of the abov-e writ

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI K.GOVERDHAN REDDy

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGp FOR HOME

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: None Appeared

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IIIL IION(^{IUTIAI}LI-SRI JI.]STICE B. VTJAYSE\ REDDY} \.1,,\o. 9S?.1 ol.^20Itl

¶24

OI{DEII:

¶25

'fhis wri petition is lllecl to cleclare the action^{ol'responclent} No.-t in llot^ct 'nsidel'ing^{the represc"ntations dated l8 l I '20 I6 and} 28.02.101'7^{subnitted by the petitioner tbr registeringF l'R'No l69 ol} 2016 against^{espondentNo'5 under Section302 IPC and not} proceeding^{witt the investigation in the said crimeas illegal' arbitrary} and unconstitutr^:nal'

¶26

Learned^{\ssistantGovernment Pleader for Home hasplaced} on record^{wrr:ten instructions' Itis submittedthatcomplaint} dated^{22.07.2015 was lodgedby the petitio'ner stating thar his younger} son K.Santosh^{[ 'umar clied by vomiting lnitially' they were under the} intpressiorr^{tl-ra he cliecl cltte lo tood poisoninu'and theyhavc} pcrtbt'r'uccl^{his f rlleralLatcr' on seeir-rghis cell llhonc call logs' thcl'} 1ounr.l^{that one l- Nlanitrla (responclenlNo 5) talketJ tr-' his sorr six} tinre^{s oll Sttnti v bclw'eenI I :31 anclI l:50 prn'Responcier-rtNo'5} cilrlle^{to their louse in the midnightHis son's mobilephonealso} contains^{photosand voice recordings' lt was suspected that respondent} No.5 made^{his son cough up money for the pastthree years andshe} subjected^{his s >n to severemental agony and tortureandrequested} that^{necessaryactionbe taken' Based on complaint' a case in} Cr.No.169^{of 2016 was registeredunder Section 174 Cr'PC'' on} 22.0'7.2016'^{I uring investiga?on'police rQ'Eordecl the statements of} the^{complainart' conductecl scene of offence panchanan-rain the}

¶27

presence of mediators, statements of L.Ws.2 to 4 were recorded, police exhumed the dead body and conducted inquest over the dead body at Kankal burial ground. Post-nr o rrer.t.t cxantination u lrs conducted to knori, the car:se ol'dearh. -[ hc ntcdical r.cporr slatcs rltrt the death of tlre deceased died due to "Organophosphate. lrr) insecticide poison".

¶28

On 20.0,1,2017, the Sub-Divisional police Officer. par.gi Sub-Division issued a rnemo based on the r.epresentation of the petitioner to intemogate the suspect thoroughly and systematically with the assistance of the women police to elicit the truth, apart fi.om collecting the call details of the suspect and the deceased to finalise the case. The suspect person (respondent No.5) was examined on 23.06.2017. She did not confess the offenJe. She was interrogated and examined about her complicity, but police could not find any nraterial against her. On both the occasions when she was exanrined. the police could nor get any inlormation about her involvement ilr thc a llcged ollt'nce.

¶29

It is subrnitted by learned Assistant Govenrrncrrt pleacier l.or. Flome that investigation was completed. but finai repon was not rj red while written instructions were received by therr. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that final report has been submitted on t3.12.2021 requesting the Second Class Magistrate Executive Magistrate-cum_Tahsildar, pargi Mandal, Vikarabad District to rreat

¶30

the case as li::k ol evidence and a copy of the tinal r(lpor-t is said to

¶31

have been ser ed on the petitioner.

¶32

In r icu' of'thc s;.lrnc. tl-ris court is of thc op:rrion that no lirrthcr

¶33

()r'!le r'5 llc ne e ( >sr.u'\ in this x rit pelition.

¶34

6 .t'he rrrir petition is disposed ol giving Iiberty to the petitioner

¶35

to approach th( competent court^{in case he has received final/closure}

¶36

report submitte tby the^{police. No costs.}

¶37

1 Pending aiscellaneous^{petitions, if any, shall stand closed'}

¶38

SD/.P.PAOMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

!'1')

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

Two CCs to the^{C P} for^{Home, High Court for the State of Telangana[OUT]} One CC to SRI K^{3OVERDHAN REDDY, AdvocateIOPUC]} 3. Two C.D. Copies. 4. One Spare CopY. MRC

S \'^{i^}

HIGH COURT

DATED: 22112,2021

ORDER

WP.No.9574 of 2018

''-1.:"^tSIAI€ I t 0^{JAN 2022}

¶50

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^{COS TS}

¶51

K.Venkatesham v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venkatesham v. The State of Telangana

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

Hyder Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Zainulla Abedin Vs The State of Telangana rep., by its Principal Secretary

Sapasetti Venkata Sainath Vs State of Telangana

M. Satyanarayana Goud Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Smt. Pranita Agarwal Vs Union of India

Smt Regina Mary Vs Union of India