Disposed

Nalla Swamy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2023WP/18851/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In HP 18851 of 2023, the Court directed Respondent 2 to ensure the concerned Officer examines the petitioner's representation dated 29.05.2023 regarding the filing of charges under IPC 307 and 498-A, and direct the filing of an additional report if necessary, disposing of the petition without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State to direct the concerned officer to examine the petitioner's representation and file an additional report/charge sheet if necessary, and disposed of the writ petition.

Nalla Swamy, Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18851 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nalla Swamy, S/o Late Yaladri, Aged about^{35 years,Occ. Business.Rfo} ldikuda Village, Chandur lvlandal. Nalgonda District,^Telangana.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary,^{Home Department,} Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda^District.

¶14

.) The Deputy Superintendent of Police,^{Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.}

¶15

¶16

The Station House Officer, Munugode Police Station,^{NalgondaDistrict.}

¶17

Gopanaboina Saidulu, S/o Devaiah,^{Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business,Rl/o} Pulipalpula Village, Munugode Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶18

Magadudla Bixamaiah, S/o Maraiah,^{Aged about 48 years,Occ.Agriculture,} F/o Jamasthampallyn Village, Munugodwe^{Mandal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶19

Mangadudla Andalu, W/o Bixamaiah,^{Aged about 42 years,O_cc.Agriculture'} Fl/o Jamasthampallyn Village, Munugodwe^{[Vlandai,NalgondaDistrict.}

¶20

Gopanaboina Devaiah, S/o Pichaiah.^{Aged about} Z0^{y9ar9, Occ. Agriculture.} Fyo Pulipalpula Village, Munugode^{lrr'landal.NalgondaDistrict.}

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 ol the^{Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the natureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring the^{action of the respondentNo.2 in not taking any} action on the complaint dt.16-O5-2O23^{for adding section498-4 and 307 IPC} against the respondents 5 to 8^{is illegal, arbitrary and contraryto the provisions} of lhe criminal Procedure code^{and consequentlydirect the respondents2 to 4}

¶23

to add section 498-4 and 307 IPC against the respondents 5 to 8 i.e. A-3, A-5 to A-7 in Crime No.55 of 2023 on the file of Munugode Police Station, Nalgonda District.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to take action on the complaint dt..l6-05-2023 filed by the petitioner by adding sections 498-4 and 307 IPC against the respondents 5 to 8 i.e. A-3, A-5 to A-7 in Crime No.55 ot 2023 on the file of Munugode police Station, Nalgonda District in accordance with law, pending disposal of the main Writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.RAVINDER

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 8: SRI JANARDHAN GOUD SUNKARI The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.1885L of 20123

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:_

¶34

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not taking any action on the complaintdt. 16.05.2023 for adding section 49g-A and 307 IPC against the respondents 5 to B is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to add section 498-A and 307 IpC against the respondents 5 to g i.e. A-3, A-5 to A_7 in Crime No.55 of 2023 on the file of Munugode police Station, Nalgonda District and pass such other order or orders. .."

¶35

The case of the petitioner is that he is the de facto complainant in Crime No.55 of 2023. It is the further case of the petitioner that the contents of the complaint lodged by him discloses cognizable offence attracting the provisions of Sections 307 and 498-A of I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against respondent Nos.S to B, tHe aolice have not taken any action against respondent

¶36

¶37

¶38

CVBR, J wp_18851_2023

¶39

Nos.5 to 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had submitted a representation, dated 2g.O5.2O23 praying to take action against respondent Nos.S to g. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 while Iiling the remand report has not examined the contents of the complaint in proper marrner thereby committed an error in not adding the provisions of Sections 307 and 49g_A of I.p.C. against respondent Nos.S to g even though the dying declaration of the deceased states the involvement of respondent Nos.5 to g.

¶40

In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and since the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 29.05.2023 on the file of the respondent No.4, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to direct the concerned Officer to examine the representation, d,ated 29 .O5.2O23, submitted by the petitioner and if necessary file additionar report/charge sheet after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Magistrate under Sub_Section (B) of the Section 173 of the Cr.p.C.

¶41

CVBR, J Wp 1885 I 2023

¶42

¶43

4 . With the above observations, the Writ Petition is

¶44

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶45

5 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶46

shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/. P.PADMANA HA REDDY ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// GISTRAR

¶48

To,

¶49

sECTto OFFICER

¶50

' Ji:1J;if5:1r3ff:*'r,^{Home Department, secretariar} Buirdinss, Hyderabad,

¶51

The Superintendent of police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶52

The Deputy Superintendent of police, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.

¶53

The Station House Officer, Munugode police Station, Nalgonda District.

¶54

One CC to SRt CH.RAV

¶55

6 one cc to sRTJANARD|;rvE:#l:ffi[il?0uo.*"

¶56

ropuc]

¶57

' I}o""?r"ot l"r$fifio*^{HoME, Hish court ror the state} or reransana at

¶58

Two CD Copies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2011212023

ORDER

1 Be S TAr€
(
z
oo)q 2 i JAl'l zul .LC)
* {l
t D ES PAT L ts9O

¶65

WP.No.18851 of 2023

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶67

WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

.y
->a

Nalla Swamy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalla Swamy, 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

Md. Faizuddin Vs The State of Telangana

K. Neethu Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Nawazuddin Vs The State Of Telangana

M.A. Khadar Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana

M.K. Sridhar Goud Vs The Government of Telangana

V Vijayakanth Reddy Vs State of Telangana