Disposed

Kagithapu Mohan Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Apr 2022WP/20649/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 20649 of 2022 challenging police inaction in investigating FIR No. 71/2022. Counsel submitted the case was closed as civil in nature after a representation, rendering specific reliefs non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy. No order as to costs.

Kagithapu Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION N O: 20649 OF 2022

¶7

Between

¶8

Kagithapu lt/ohan Rao, S/o K. Dhana Raju, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, R/o 11-3-153, Road No.13, Venkateshwara Colony, Saroorangar, Hyderabad.

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam Commissionarate, peddapally District.

¶13

The Station House Officer, P.S. Peddapally at Peddapally,

¶14

Mettu Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Peer Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Venkata Padma A.C. Function Hall, Main Road Rangampally Village and Ir,4andal Peddapally District

¶15

Mettu Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Mettu Venkata Appi Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. Venkata Padma A.C. Function Hall, Main Road

¶16

Rangampally Village and Mandal Peddapally District

¶17

tr/ettu Devender Reddy, S/o. Mettu Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 27 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Venkata Padma A.C. Function Hall, Ir/ain Road Rangampally Village and l\rlandal Peddapally District

¶18

Mettu Peer Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. Rangampally Village, Mandal and District Peddapally.

¶19

t\4ettu Venkata^{Appi Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy' Aged about 66 years'Occ'} Business, R/o. C/o.^{Venkata PadmaA.C. Function Hall,Rangampally Village} and Mandal Peddapally,^District

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances staied in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ,^{order or orders more particularlyone in the nature of} writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe inaction on the part of the 3rd respondentin} investigating^{into the crime,not even sending Section41-A Noticeor following} due procedure as^{mandated underthe provisions of criminal Procedure code in} respectoftheF'l.R.No.71l2o22dated2llo2l2o22onthefileofthe3rd respondent^{police station, not filing charge sheet in the above crime as arbitrary,} illegal and in^{violation of Articles 14 and 21 of constitutionof lndiaand} consequently direct^{the respondentpolice to conductenquiry into the} F.l.R.No.7.1/2022^{dated 2110212022on the file of the 3rd respondentpolice} station.

¶22

IA NO: 1 0F 2022

¶23

Petition under Section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} directthe3rdRespondenttoconductenquiry,sendnoticeu/s41.ACr.P.C,and record the statement^{of all concerned U/s. 161 cr.P.c., file charge sheetand be'}

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner^{:SRl.M PRASHANT KUMAR}

¶25

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.1to 3 : GP FOR HOME}

¶26

Counsel for the^{ResPondent 5 to 8}

¶27

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶28

1 1

¶29

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶30

WRIT PETTTION No.20649 of2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the inaction on the paft of the 3'd respondent in investigating into the crime, noi even sending Section 4l-A notice or following due procedure as mandated under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code in respect of F.I.R.No.71 of 2022, dated 21.02.2022, on the file of the 3'd respondent police station and not filing charge sheet in the above crime, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Sri Prashanth Kumar M., leamed counsel for the petitioner, submitted that basing on the complaint of the petitioner, a crime was registered. According to the petitioner, the 3'd respondent has not conducted any enquiry and not even sent a notice under Section 41 -A Cr.P.C. As such, the petitioner made a representation to the police on 24.10.2021, but no action has been contemplated by the respondent police. It is submitted that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have made similar crime in the adjoining plot and now they are over the petitioner's land and a case in C.C.No.570 of 2020 on the h1e of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapally is pending against respondent Nos.7 and 8 and they are not attending the case and entering into the petitioner's plot by doing such illegal activities. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶34

¶35

Sri S.Rama Mohan Rao, lean.red Assistant Govemment Pleader tbr Home, basing on the written instructions received fi"om Sub-Inspectol Police, Peddapalli Police Station, submitted that after conducting investigation, the respondent police have closed the case as 'civil in nature' on 31.03.2022. The respondent police will issued a notice to the petitioner and will file a final report before the learned Magistrate. It is submitted that when a crime is registered on21.02.2021, coming before this Couft stating that investigation is not conducted and 41-A Cr.P.C. notice is not issued, with such reliefs, tl.re petitioner cannot approach this Courl and such reliefs are not n.raintainable.

¶36

Recording the submission of learned Assistant Covernment Pleader', the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy. No order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/.T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶39

¶40

//TRUE COPY// ( ).------SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶43

The Commissioner of police, Ramagundam Com m issiona rate, Peddapally District.

¶44

The Station House Officer, p.S. peddapally at peddapally,

¶45

One CC to SRI. M PRASHANT KUMAR,Advocate IOPUC]

¶46

Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana. Iour]

6, Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:22/ 04 / 2022

6'i S TA t4:.
a.
:lLY
21 JUL 2[22
7. -,i.'
Il
.:t/

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No.20649 of 2022

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

Kagithapu Mohan Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kagithapu Mohan Rao 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

Sri Heera Lal Bhai Patel Vs The State of Telangana

Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadees Hyderabad and Secunderabad Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Mostafa Askari Hemat Vs The Government of Telangana and another

M.A. Majeed and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Julakuntla Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Kasaram Ramesh Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana