Dismissed

Smt. M. Manemma @ Vadla Manemma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023WP/23241/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the refusal to register an FIR in a dispute over agricultural land. The High Court found the dispute to be civil in nature without serious allegations of cognisable offences and dismissed the petition, directing the police to submit the closure report.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits. Assistant Government Pleader directed to furnish closure report to petitioner.

Smt. M. Manemma @ Vadla Manemma Vs The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:23241^{OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. M. Manemma @^{Vadla Manemma,Wo. Late M. Srinivqsulu,Aged} JOort OA^years, Occi^{Agriculture, Fl/o. Thimmajipet Village,Thimmajipet} Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Superintendent of^{Police, Nagarkurnool, NagarkurnoolDistrict-}

¶13

The Circle lnspector of Police,^{Nagarkurnool' Nagarkurnool District'}

¶14

3 The Circle lnspector of Police,^{Nagarkurnool' Nagarkurnool District'} 4 The Station House Officer,^{ThimmajipetVillage and Mandal,Nagarkurnool} District.

¶15

5 Gaddala Niranian,^{S/o.Sathaiah,Age. Ngt Known,Occ.Not known,Rlio'} Thimmajipet Village,^{Thimmajipet Mandal, NagarkurnoolDistrict.}

¶16

6 Gaddala Parashuramulu, S/o.^{Sathaiah, Age. Not known, Occ' Not Known,} Fl/o. Thimmajipet Village,^{Thimmajipet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District'}

¶17

7 Gaddala Shiva, S/o.^{Niranjan, Age. Not known, Occ. Not Known,R/o'} Thimmajipet Village,^{Thimmdjipet Mandal, NagarkurnoolDistrict.}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 ol^{lhe constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstancbs stated in^{the affidavitfiledtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue any order or orders or direction^{or writ or writs more particularly} one in the nature of wRlT oF^{MANDAIV1US declaring the action of the} Respondent No.4 in^{reiecting the representation D1.1210712023through} whatsapp message^{Dl. O4lO8t2O23stating that the complaintD1.121O712023 is} Civil in nature is as^{illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violationof principles of natural} justice and consequently direct the Respondent^{No.4 to registerthe FIR against}

¶20

¶21

the Respondent No 5 to 7 and investigate into the matter in the interest of justice and equity.

¶22

IANO: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 direct the Respondent No.4 to register the FrR against the Respondent No.5 to 7 and investigate, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

Counset for the petitioner: SRI CH.JANARDHAN REDDy

¶25

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

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent No.S to 7: -_

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

WRIT PETITION No. 23241 of2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The petitioner claims to have purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.l.O0 situated in Survey No.17 of Thimmajipet Village and Mardal from its original owner by way ofunregistered sale deed dated 10.08.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the revenue authorities, in exercise of power under Section 5A of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, l97l (for short^,,the Act) regularised the sale by issuing certificate under Section 13(B) of the Act, vide proceedings dated 28.10.1996 and also entered her name in the revenue records. It is the further case of the petitioner that when respondent Nos.5 to 7 interfered '"r,ith her peaceful possession over the subject land and causing inconvenience, she instituted O.S.No.ll3 of 2074 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, seeking to grant perpetual injunction and the said Court granted ad interim injunction vide I.A.No.369 of 2014 on 07.1O.2O14. The contention of the petitioner is that despite the said order of ad interim injunction, respondent Nos.S to 7 are criminally trespassing into her land and threatening her rvith dire

¶32

)

¶33

¶34

consequences, which constrained her to submit a complaint dated 12.07.2023 on the file of respondent No.4 The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the said complaint reveals cognisable offence, respondent No.4 has closed the sarne as civil in nature. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions to respondent No.4 to register FIR against respondent Nos.5 to 7 and investigate into the matter.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Laltta Kumari us. hoernment of Uttar Pradesh and, othersl, in order to buttress his contention that once the complaint discloses cognisable offence, there is an obligation on the part of the respondents police to register FIR as required under Section I 54 of Cr. P. C, but the complaint cannot be closed as civil in nature.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that after receipt of the complaint dated 12.07 .2023 submitted by the petitioner, the respondents police made a General Diary entry and as the preliminary enquiry revealed that there are civil disputes betrveen the

I (20 14) 2 scc I

petitioner and respondent Nos's^{to 7, they closed the} complaint as civil in^{nature and the same has also been} communicated^{to the} Petitioner.

¶41

On a careful examination^{of the complaint dated} 12.07.2023 submitted^{by the petitioner, this Court is also} of the pima facie opinion^{that there are serious civil} disputes between the^{petitioner and respondent Nos'5 to 7} in respect of the subject^{land and there are no serious} allegations which satisfy^{the ingredientsofcognisable} offence for the^{purpose of registrationof FIR.}

¶42

Therefore, the writ petition is^{dismissedas devoidof} merits. However, the^{learned AssistantGovernment} Pleader for Home is directed to^{furnish a copy of the} closure report to the petitioner to^{enableher to avail the} remedies as available under law.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall^stand

¶44

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANI.REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (:D SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

1 One CC to SRI CH.JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3 Two CD Copies BSR GJP 1.

HIGH GOURT

DATED: 0211112023

ORDER

WP.No.23241 ot 2023

t AI€
1
(
?
.,,.11 ,,iil1
It,. '* I "-- .t'
1
r) .t'
'-:t (. '

¶53

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

t%'a\t<br>

Smt. M. Manemma @ Vadla Manemma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Manemma @ Vadla Manemma 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalgonda District Cricket Association Vs The Hyderabad Cricket Association (Hca)

Raghu Boda Vs The State of Telangana

Mir Siadath Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Miyapur Beauty And Spa Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. D. Kiran Kumar, Vs State of Telangana

T. Sheshnarayan, Vs Government of Telangana