Disposed

Chatla Nagabhushanam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023WP/21530/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition and a continuing relief petition filed by a businessman seeking registration of a criminal case against police officials who allegedly forced him to compromise. The Court observed that a preliminary enquiry under Section 160 Cr.P.C. revealed lack of evidence and directed the petitioner to submit documents to the police within a stipulated timeframe, direc

What did the court decide?

Disposed; Petitioner directed to submit documents required by Investigating Authority; Police to take action on receipt of information.

Chatla Nagabhushanam Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6.1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PET]TION NO: 21530 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chatla Nagabhushanam, S/o Gnaneshwar Rao, aged about 37 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No.6-5-BAO03, Ptat No.14 West Part, Sri Maruthi Nagar, Badangpet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

ANO

¶11

The State of Tel?ngana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Khammam City, Khammam District, TS.

¶13

The Station House Officer/lnspector of Police, Sathupally Police Station, Sathupally, Khammam District

¶14

Mr Karunakar, S/o Not to know to the Petitioner, Occ Circle lnspec{or, Sathupally Police Station, Sathupally, Khammam District

¶15

Mr Ramu, S/o Not to know to the Petitioner, Sathupally Police Station, Sathupally, Khammam District^'

¶16

A Sambasiva Rao, S/o Gumadham Occ . Korry Driver., Aged about 47 Years Sathupally Police Station, Sathupally, Khammam District

¶17

91.'ai! Raheem Pasha, S/o Adam Saheb, Occ . Agril., Aged about 30 Years R/o Kakarlapalli Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District

¶18

M Venkat Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy Occ . Agril., Aged about 38 Years Sathupally Police Station, Sathupally, Khammam District

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, to declare the in action of the respondents herein, particularly/ 2nd respondent and 3rd respondents, neither registering the criminal case nor arrest the culprits, i.e., 4th

¶21

unofficial respondents to 8th unofficial respondents, pursuant to the petitioner cognizabre criminar compraint, dated. 14.07.2023, and having received the cognizable criminal complaint by lhe official respondents and not yet registered the case or arrested the culprits, and same as been illegal, artritrary, unjust, and its nothing but misuse of their officiar powers, and consequenfly direct the respondents herein, particurarry 2nd respondent and 3rd respondents, forthwith register the criminar case and arrest the curprits, i.e., 4 unofficiar respondent to gth unofficiar respondents, pursuanl to the petitioner cognizabre criminar compraint, dated. 14.07.2023

¶22

1A NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to issue the directions to the respondents herein, particurarry 2nd respondent and 3rd respondents, forthwith register the criminal case and arrest the culprits, i.e., 4th unofficiar respondent to gth unofficiar respondents, pursuant to the petitioner cognizable criminar compraint, dated. 14.o7.2023, pending disp.sar of the main Writ Petition, in the interest of justice,

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KTSHAN RAJ CHAUHAN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.i to 3: AGp FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to g: -

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE^{SRTJUSTICEC.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶29

WRIT PETITION No. 2L53O of2O23

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The petitioner claims that^he is^{engaged inthe} business of purchase ard sale^{of Maize and during the} course of business transactions,^{he borrowed certain} amounts from one Mr.^{Sambasiva Rao i-e., respondent} No.6 herein and subsequently^{he repaidthe entire amount.} The case of the petitioner is^{that despite thesame,} respondent No.6 along with^{respondentNos.7 and 8} approached the respondents^{police for enforcement of the} cheques which were earlier obtained^{from him during} business transactions, in order^{to gain wrongfully and} extract money frorn him. It^{is the further case of the} petitioner that when at the^{instigationof respondent Nos.6} to 8, respondent Nos.4^{and 5 are frequentlysummoning} him to police station and^{forcing him to enter into} compromise with^{respondentNos.6 to 8 as per the terms} dictated by them, he^{was constrained to lodge a complaint} dated 14.07.2023 on the file^{of respondentNo-3 for taking} appropriate action^{2gainst respondent Nos.4 to B.}

F=;

The grlevance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the sard complaint, so far not taken resporrdent No.3 has ax]- steps to register any cas e agai.n st respondent Nos.4 to g.

¶36

Learned Asr Government pi€ instructions for Home on "uort'"t*' r4.oz.2o23.r0rrr,"," that a6f1pg ", ,h. conrplaint dated by the pefitioner' tt"''otdent No 3 has conduct., o..t"o inary enquiry *ntt it is revealed that there is no evic in support of t,.e in the compr.rr, esations rnade ""' t" such' a notice ut '^req,ired under section gi / 160"' has been issued "'o directing him to o.o,..o." the relevant t"t".r"J"r-" ,: enable him to or"t" further' r'earned Assistaat Government pleader aott"o submits that eve of the said notice, ,n."ttn"r -'n afler receipt petiLioner has farled information or eviden fu.nish a,,y to enable the polic further for i.rrr..tigu" 14.o2.2o2s. tion into the *-r;':;r'."i 4. At this stage, counsel for r submits that the o.,'"tt'"d petitioner has not t"".rrt^" notice under Section n,"'o"t *'' "'"n r/160 01 6..o.c and ,r."0 ruch notice is

¶37

¶38

¶39

served upon him, he will file appropriate^{explanation to the} said notice.

¶40

In view of the said submission,^{the writ petition is} disposed of directing the petitioner^{tosubmit the} documents as required^by the Investigating^{Authority in} response to the notice under Section^{91/160of Cr.P-C and} on receipt of such information, the^{respondentspolice are} directed to take appropriate action^{in accordancewith law.}

¶41

Pending miscellaneous applications,^{ifany, shall}

¶42

stand closed. There shall be^{no order as to costs.}

¶43

SD/-B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT^REGI9TRAR //TRUE COPY// 'J?17 SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

To, 1 The Principal^{Secretary, HomeDepartment' Secretariat' BRKRBhavan'} Hvderabad. State^{of Telangana'}

¶45

2 r#"i6;;Gi;it"i^{bi iori"ii iittammam Citv' KhammamDistrict'rS'} 3 rhe Station House^{Officeiif'"lpe,iiiioi iotice,Satnupa1v PoliceStation'} Sathuoallv, Khammam^District'

¶46

4 #;' Uii6' sHt^{iii'sr-rAr.t nnJ CHAUHAN' Advocate [oPUC]} 5 ffi t"c;6' cilbR^{HOi,tE,-r-rigiicburt for tha state of relarsanaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶47

6 Two CD Copies

¶48

BSRGJP >Y-

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0Zt11tZO23

ORDER

WP.No.21530 ot 2023

-( trE SIATe
(
e
cJ 2; i\i;v 2023 2
.A
,
* C,E S ir^l r: ttrl(<br>

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

0
,
2-a

Chatla Nagabhushanam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chatla Nagabhushanam 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

Smt. Rapan Venkata Jyothi Vs State of Telangana

Mr. Mahipatbhai Jesingbhai Dodiya Vs the State of Telangana

Miryala Ramadevi Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Abdul Mannan Vs The State of Telangana

Samala Raj Karate Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Kunduru SubbaRao Vs The Government of Telangana