Disposed

Kurumiddi Madhulatha v. The State of Telengana

Telangana HC13 Dec 2023WP/21316/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by a Scheduled Caste petitioner alleging inaction and failure to register an FIR regarding caste-based abuse and obstruction on leased agricultural land. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing police officers to register a case under the SC/ST Act and act against negligent duties. The court disposed of the petition without forming a definite opinion on police

What did the court decide?

Respondents were directed to furnish the closure/final report of the complaint to enable the petitioner to avail remedies under law.

Kurumiddi Madhulatha Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO:2 1316 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kurumidd.i-Madllatllgr Wo Srinivas, aged about 34 years, Occ. Agriculture, Cast.SC-Mala, R/o H.No 17-208, lndri Nagar Coloiy, Shad Nag:r i;;;; Farooq Nagar Mandal, Rangareddy Dislrict.^-

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

'1 . The State of Telengana, Rep. by its principal Secretary Home, Departm€nt, Hyderabad-

¶12

The S_uperintendant of Police (Sp), Nagarkarnool, Nagarkarnool, District.

¶13

The .Deputy Superintendant of^police (DSp), Naga"rkamoot, Nagirkimoot, District.

¶14

The Station House Officer (SHO),^penflavelli, Nagarkamool, District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS By declaring the in action of the respondent no.2 to 4 not taking any action and not registering FIR on the complaint dt.o3togl2o23 which was given by the petitioner against the i. professor Laxman, 2. Narayana Rao, 3. Jakka Balaiah, 4. Laxmi Narayana, 5.Venkatesh, 6. Budareddy, 7. Nandi Kousalya, W/o. Rajeswar Reddy, S.Nandi Rajeswat Reddy, 9. Kesireddy Venkataramanam-ma, 10- Kesireddy Chinna Reddy,^{'l 'l} . Gaddam Kantha Reddy, 12. Bankameedi Narsimha Reddy, 13. Dega Shekar Reddy, 14. Anand yadav, 15. Beechupally Yadav, 16. Ravikumar, 17. Dasu, is illegal arbitrary, and violation of sec 18A of sc/sr Act 1989. and consequenfly direct the Respondent No.2 to take action against the 4th respondent as per the section 4 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 for his willful negligent duties

¶17

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 Respondent No.2 to 4 to take action on the cornplaint dl. O3lOBl2O23 and register an FIR and investigate the matter against the accused persons in the complaint

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOGILI ANAVENI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following: OROER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE C.V. BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21316 of 2o23

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶26

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS By declaring the in action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 not taking any action and not registering F.l.R. on the complaint dated O3/08 /2023 whrch was given by the petitioner against (1 ) Professor Laxman, (21 Narayana Rao, (3) Jakka Balaiah, (41 Laxmi Narayana, (5) Venkatesh, (6) Budareddy,⁽⁷⁾ Nandi Kousalya W/o Rajeswar Reddy, (8) Nandi Rajeswar Reddy, (9) Kesireddy Venkataramanamma,^(1O) Kesireddy Chinna Reddy, (11) Gaddam Kantha Reddy, (12) Bankameedi Narsimha Reddy,⁽¹³⁾ Dega Shekar Reddy, (14) Anand Yadav,⁽¹⁵⁾ Beechupally Yadav, (16) Ravikumar and (17) Dasu, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Section l8-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes^(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") and consequently direct Respondent No.2 to take action against respondent No.4 as^per Section^{4 of the Act} for his wilful negligent duties..."

¶27

¶28

)

¶29

CVBR. J WP-21316 2023

¶30

2 The case of the petitioner is that he belonged^{to the} Scheduled Caste (MaIa community) and doing^agriculture coolie work, entered into a lease agreement,^dated 25.03.2023 in respect of the land admeasuring^Ac.8.00 guntas in Sy.No.461/AA and Ac. 1O.O0 guntasⁱⁿ Sy.No.463/AA situated at Jatprole Village,^Pentlavelli Mandal, Nagarkarnool District. It is the further^{case of the} petitioner that when he wants to cultivate the said land to raise the vegetable crop and ploughing the field, by that time there was a galata took place and some of the villagers obstructed him for cultivating the land and also abused him in hlthy language by referring his caste name. The grievance of the petitioner is that stating the above said facts, he lodged a complaint, dated 03.08.2023 and even though said - complaint reveals cognizable offence, the respondent-police ar.e not registering any case against the persons, who abused him in filthy language by referring his caste name

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently no conten@d that as per Section 18 (A) of the Act,

¶32

¶33

¶34

CVI]R, J Wp 21316 2023

¶35

preliminary enquiry is required^{for registrationof a first} information report against^{any personor the investigating} officer shall not^{requireapprovalfor the arrest, if necessary,} of any persons,^{against whom accusation ofhaving} committed an^{offence under the Act and contrary to the} said provision, the^{police are conducting preliminary} enquiry and in collusion^{with the accused persons,have} filed counter affidavit^{stating that the complaint lodgedby} the petitioner is^false'.

¶36

Per contra, learned^{Assistant Government Pleader for} Home, while referring^{paragraphNo' 1 1 of the counter} affidarrit, has vehemently^{contendedthat in order to grab} the land to an^{extentof Ac. 116.10guntas at Jetaprole} village and also^{one house inthe limits of Laxmipally} Village, one Damagatla @^{Golla Shiva Kumar, along with} his family members,^{have colluded with the petitioner as} she belongs to^{scheduled caste and liled false cases against} thei4 opponents^{and also against the Sub-lnspectorof} t Police, Chinnambavi^{Police Stationand Sub-lnspector of} Police,^{Pentlavelly PoliceStation.It is further stated that}

¶37

¶38

CVBR, J wp 2t316_202)

¶39

the petitioner is a petition monger and constantly filing these kind of petition by taking advantage of her community in collusion with Damag atla @ Golla Shiva Kumar with false allegations for grabbing the property. In the counter affidavit, the respondents seriously denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and also stated that there is no truth in it and as such prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶40

In view of the above, this Court, without expressing any opinion whether the respondents are having power to conduct preliminar5z enquiry or not and taking note of the fact that the respondents have already closed the complaint lodged by the petitioner as 'civil in nature', disposed of this writ petition directing the respondents to furnish the closure/final report to enable the petitioner to avail the remedies available under law.

¶41

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶42

¶43

CVI}R. J Wp 213 t6 2023

¶44

7 As a sequel, the^{miscellaneouspetitions pending, if}

¶45

any, shall stand^closed.

¶46

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT^REG STRAR

¶47

/ffRUE COPY//

¶48

SECTION ICER

¶49

To'1 . The Principal Secretary Home, Department' T'S''H.yderabad' i. +#^b l;r;'ffitui;;"t;r.,i;il;js^{nl r'lugui'nooi'Naoarkarnool' District'} 3. The Deputy^{s uperlntenalni;i F;fi;i6sPl r'tagaainool'Nasarkamoo l'} District.

¶50

+. int' Siation^{HouseOffi cer (SHO),Pentlavelli'. Naq?rkarnool' District'}

¶51

+;;bE; t,;^{6F-r-oCri5ilE ,iiiir, court ror ttrc state or relangana'at}

¶52

Hvderabad [OUTI

¶53

1. iji;"b"Ct^{SFL rfiocrltANAVENI,Advocate[oPUc]}

¶54

Two CD CoPies BM GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 311212023

e s?A
(
oo 10 JAN 202[ o
-b
*
t
Og PA1 c

¶59

ORDER

¶60

WP.No.21316 of 2023

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION W]THOUT COSTS

¶62

&di,a ^9&ee-^v "^6</sup>

Kurumiddi Madhulatha v. The State of Telengana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurumiddi Madhulatha v. The State of Telengana

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

Ajmira Lakhupati Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Qutubuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Gopi Transport Vs State of Telangana

Humaira Anjum Vs The State of Telangana

Bantu Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

Somanaboina Ravinder Yadav Vs The State of Telangana