Disposed

G. Venkateswar Rao v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC9 Mar 2022WP/3348/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court for the State of Telangana addressed the inaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Police regarding a complaint alleging forged documents. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file the complaint directly with the concerned Station House Officer, who was directed to take necessary action, before disposing of

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a complaint before the Station House Officer concerned, to be acted upon in accordance with law.

G. Venkateswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA:AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF^MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM^AKTHER

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3348 OF²⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

G. Venkateswar Rao, S/o.^{Raghavaiah, Age. 50 Occ. Employee,R/o.} Kamalapur Village. Navipet Mandal,^{NizamabadDistrict.}

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,^Rep. through^{its Principal Secretary' Home} Department, Telangana Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad^{Commissionerate, Gachibowli,} Hyderabad.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner of^{Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate,} Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Gachibowli^{Police Station, Cyberabad} Com m ission erate, Hyderabad.

¶14

Guttula Narasimha^lVurthy, S/o.^{G. Venkanna, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-358-k3'} Kambatlapally, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶15

A. Devender, S/o. A. Pandu, Occ. Real^{Estate Business,FJo. H.No 1-98/15,} lr/adhapur Village, Serilingampally lr/andal,^{Ranga Reddy District,}

¶16

Smt. G. Narayanamma, W/o. G. Anjaneyulu, R/o.^{RJo. H.No. 1-98/15,} Madhapur Viliage, Serilingampally Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶17

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of India prayingthat 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 Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent^{in not considering} the complaint vide Receipt No. 1265/OU/ACP Cyberabad/06-2020^{dl. 0410912020} made against the illegat and highhanded attitude of 6th^{respondentwhohas} forged and fabricated the documents which were already cancelled^{earlier by 7th} respondent and also a suit filed was dismissed against the unofficial^respondents

¶19

{

¶20

is illegal, arbitrary^{andagainst the principles of naturaljustice and violativeof} Articles^'14, 21 of^{constitutionof lndia and consequentlydirecttherespondent} police forthwith to register^{the complaint of the petitioner by taking stringent action} against the culPrits.

¶21

NO: F20

¶22

PetitionunderSectionl5,lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleasedto direct} in"^{-i".pono"nt poliieforthwith to registerthe complaint vlde ReceiptNo.} iZos)OiilACi^{Cy'berabad/oo-2o2o dt. 04-09-2020of the petitionerby taking} rtri"g"rt action^{against the culprits pending disposal of the abovewrit petition and} pass

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI S. MALLESWARARAO}

¶24

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.1to 4: SRI A'MANOJ KUMAR'AGP for Home} rep. GP FOR^HOME

¶25

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.5to 7: None Appeared}

¶26

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶27

t I

¶28

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE^{SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶29

WRIT PETITION No'3348 of 2021

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The petitioner herein seeks a writ of^{Mandamus declaring} the inaction of the respondent^{No.3 in not consideringthe} complaint vide Receipt^{No.r265lOU/ACPCyberabad/06-2020} dated 04.09.2020 made against^{the respondent No.6, who} forged and fabricated the documents,^{which were already} cancelled by respondent^{No.7, as illegal, arbitrary,and against} the princlples of natural^{justice and violativeof Articles14 and} 21 of the Constitution of India and^{consequently,direct the} respondent-police to reglster the^{petitioner'scomplaint,} forthwith and to take stringent^{action against the culprits.}

¶32

Heard the learned counsel^{for the petitioner,learned} Assistant Government Pleader for^{Home, appearingfor} respondent Nos.1 to 4 and^{perused the record.}

¶33

In the course of submissions,^{it is broughtto the notice of} thls Court by the learned^{Assistant Government Pleader for} Home, that instead of addressing a^{letter dated 04.09.2020to} the respondent No.3-Assistant^{CommissionerofPolice,} Cyberabad Commissionerate,^{the petitioner oughtto have made}

¶34

¶35

¶36

a complaint^{beforethe Station House Officerconcerned'In the} event of^{petitioner approaching the Station House Officer} concerned^{with a complaint,certainly, the stationHouse officer} concerned^{will take action' in accordance with law'}

¶37

In^{view of the above submission made by the learned} Assistant^{Government Pleader for Home' the petitioneris} granted liberty^{to file a complaint beforethe Station House} Officer^{concernedand on filing suchcomplaint' StationHouse} Officer^{concerned shall take necessary action' in accordance with} law.

¶38

5 With the^{aboveobservation/direction'this Writ Petltion is} dlsposed^of.

¶39

Mlscellaneouspetitions,ifany'pendinginthiswrit petition, shall^{stand closed'There shall be no orderas to costs'}

¶40

¶41

To,

¶42

ANSARI SD/.^M OHD.SAN^AULT.A ISTRAR ASSIST^ANT ,TRUE^COPY// SEC FFICER

¶43

b owr^{i P o, ce statio n' cvb e raba d}

¶44

, l[?,,.Jfl,:",^{l#:ii:: ffl :",: r:Schi}

¶45

2,^{ONC CC tO SRI S. MALLESWARA RAO'AdVOCAIETOPUCI} 3. Two^{CCs to theGP fo' no'"'High Courtfor the State of Telangana[OUTI}

¶46

Two^{C.D CoPies}

¶47

One^SPareCoPY

MRC

t*'11-

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/03/2022

ORDER

WP.No.3348 of 2021

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

G. Venkateswar Rao v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Venkateswar Rao v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mysa Durga Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

The Fisherman Co- Operative Society Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Samala Santosh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Karuna Shree Vs Union of India

Gundu Srinivas Vs State of Telangana

Maale Venkat Reddy Vs The Government of Telangana State and another