Dismissed

Khaleel Ur Rahman v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Oct 2023WP/21493/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking declaration that inaction by Respondent No.5 in refusing to register an FIR against Respondents 6-11 in a matrimonial dispute was illegal. Petitioner complained of arbitrary conduct. Court accepted submission that matter requires Family Court intervention.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed without orders; respondents advised to approach Family Court for redressal.

Khaleel Ur Rahman Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 21493 OF 2023

¶8

Between

¶9

Khaleel Ur Rahman, S/o. Habeeb Ur Rahman, aged^{about 31 years,occ. Private} Employee, Rl/o. H.No.20-3-501, Hussaini Alam, Jalal^{Kuncha Bahadurpura,} Hyderabad.

¶10

.,.PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

2 The Commissioner of Pofice, Hyderabad at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶14

.) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Charminiar,^Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Assistant of Police, South Zone, Charminiar, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Station HOuse Officer, Hussaini Alam Police Station,^Hyderabad.

¶17

Nishalh Sultana, W/o. Khaleel Ur Rahman, D/o. Mohammed^ShabbirAhmed Aged about 28 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.^19-3-2621A, Jahanuma^Bibi Ka Chashma, Hyderabad.

¶18

Shabbir Ahmed, S/o. Not know to the^petitoner aged 59^{years,OccRetired} Employee, R/o. H.No. 1s-3-2621A, Jahanuma Bibi Ka^{Chashma, Hyderabad.}

¶19

Nafees Sultana, W/o. Shabbir Ahmed, Aged about^{48 years,} Occ.^Housewife, R/o. H.No. 19-3-2621A, Jahanuma Bibi Ka Chashma, Hyderabad.

¶20

Kashif, S/o. Shabbir Ahmed, age 30^years, Occ^{Business, Rio. H.No.19-3-} 26214, Jahanuma Bibi Ka Chashma, Hyderabad.

¶21

'10. Raheem, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, aged 62 R/o. H.No. 19-3-2621A., Jahanuma Bibi Ka Chashma, Hyderabad.

¶22

'1 1. Shakeel, Sio. Basheer a ged 42 years, Occ Private Employee.R/o. H.No- 19-32Q2lA. Jahanuma Bibi Ka Chashma, Hyderabad. I

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constrtution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hiqh Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ ot mandamus declarrng action of the 5th respondent in not registering FIR against the respondents 6 to 11 and their henchman and not causing arrest of the respondents 6 to 11 and their henchman in sprte of receipt of the petitioner written complainants daled 2710512023 and zil11l2o22 as iltegal, Arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of cRpc and lpc and also against Article 2.1 of Constitution of lndia

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

Petition under section 15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the peti on, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 for registration of FIR against the respondents 6 to 1'l including cause of arrest of them basing on the petitioner written complaints dated 2710512023 and 2111112022 forlhwith pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KHAJA MOINUDDIN

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5 : ASST. Gp FOR HOME

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents No.6 TO 11 :

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.21493 of 2023

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The writ petition. under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶38

India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:

¶39

"...to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the lh respondent in not registering F.I.R against the respondents 6 to 11 and their henchman and not causing arrest of the respondents 6 to 17 and their henchman inspite of receipt of the petitioner written complaints dated 27-05-2023 and 21-11-2022 as illegal, Arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of CRPC and IPC and also against Article 21 of Constitution of India..."

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

¶41

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he lodged complaint dated 27.05.2023 on the file of respondent No.5 against the respondent Nos.6 to 11 and requested to take necessary action but till date the respondent No.5 is not registering any case or conducting any investigation.

¶42

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 has submitted that contehts of the complaint submitted by the petitioner revealed that there are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the

¶43

¶44

¶45

respondent No.6 and as such the respondent No.5 has not registered any case and advised the petitioner to approach the Family Counseling Centre or concerned Family Court for redressal of his grievance.

¶46

In view of the above submissions, this Writ petition is closed as no further orders are necessary.

¶47

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶48

¶49

"-' SD/. " N.CHANDRA ;sSibinr'ri^SEKHAR nectsrfen^BAO //TRUE COPY// ,1./ SECTION dFTICER

¶50

To, 1 One CC to^{SRIKHAJAtMO.-INUDDIN Advocate' tOt'"I} 2 iil tc; t"^{'CC ron HolvE Hish court for theS} ","^{of Tetangana at} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶51

Two CD^CoPies. BSK ^ cJ d)^-

i t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1011012023

ttt
,/ e SrAr€
'o*
Y 1
I
15 N0! 2[8 obz
e
a
t
DESPAl

¶57

ORDER

¶58

WP.No.21493 of 2023

¶59

closlryG THE WRIT PETIT|ON WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

o
(.<br>

Khaleel Ur Rahman v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaleel Ur Rahman v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkateswara Theatre, Vs Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary

Dr .M .Saarah Sandliya @ Madhavi Latha Vs The State Of Telangana

Sensation Sunshine, Vs State of Telangana

B. R. Subhash Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Puralasetty Sreedhar Vs The State of Telangana

Godishala Rajendar Vs The State of Telangana