Allowed

Panduga Shiva Shankar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023WP/23424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging police inaction in investigating a crime registered about three months prior. The Court allowed the petition and directed the investigating officers to complete the investigation and file the charge-sheet within three months of receiving the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents No.3 and 4 to conclude investigation and file charge-sheet within three months.

Panduga Shiva Shankar Reddy Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23424 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Panduga Shiva Shankar Reddy, S/o^{P.VeeraReddy,} age 35 y€ars, ocr. Software Engineer, Rl/o Bangalore,^{Karnataka State,} N/o H.No. 11-176, Ramnagar Colony, Nagarkumool^Town and^District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary' Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

Thil Superintendent of Police,^{Nagarkurnool district, Nagarkumool.} 3. The Deiputy Superintendent of^{Police, Nagarkumool Division, Nagarkumool} . dist., Nagarkumool.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Nagarkurnool^{Police Station, Nagarkumool district.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^{nature of} Writ of Mandamus declaring the^{inactionof RespondentNo.4, in not registering} FIR on the cognizable complaint^{of the Petitioner, further, delaying registration of} FIR for about (3) months after receipt^{of private complaint from the court and not} conducting any investigation^for the^{last one year even after registrationof FIR} vide Crime No. 27112022 of Nagarkurnool^{PS, as being illegal, arbitrary and in} violation of Article 14 of Constitution of lndia and^{provisions of CriminalProcedure} Code and consequently direct^{the 4th Respondent to completethe investigation} and file Final lnvestigation Report^{within the stipulated time}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section¹⁵¹ CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court maybe pleased to}

¶18

¶19

direct the Respondent No.4 to conclude the^{investigationin Crime No.27112022} of Nagarkumool PS forthwith under the^{procedure contemplated in the Code of} Criminal Procedure Code,^pending disposal^{of the main Writ Petition} lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court maybe pleased to} direct the Respondent No.4 to submit the CDRs^{of mobile numbers, whichwere} collected in relation to the investigation of FIR^{No. 271 ot 2022 of Nagarkurnool} P.S., to the concemed^{jurisdictional} magistrateⁱⁿ a^{sealed cover either in the} form of soft copy or hard copy

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. AMARENDAR^REDDY

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

III

HOIT'BLE SRT WSTICE C.V. BIIASI(AR^REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.23424 OF 2o23

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following^relief:

¶31

".......to issue o Writ, Order^{or Direction more particularlA one} in tle nature of Writ of Mandamts declaing tle inaction^of Respondent No.4, in not regi-steing FIR on the cogni.ruble amplaint of the Petitioner, furtler, delaging^{registration of} FIR for obout 3 months afier reeipt of^pirmte complaint from the @urt and not anducting ang inuestigation for the last one geor euen afier registration of FIR uide Crime No.271/2O22 of Nagarhtrnool P.S., as being^iJlegal, arbitrary ond in violation of Article 14 of Con-stitution of India and provisions of Ciminal Procedure Code and consequentlV direct the 4th Respondent to complete the^{inuestigationand} file^{FinalInuestigation Reporl uithin the stipulated. time and} pass such otlter relief...."

¶32

2 The grievance of the petitioner is that he has^{lodged a} complaint before the respondents-police and^{even thoughthe} respondents-police have registered a case in Cr.No.271^of 2022, dated O3.O9.2O22 for the^{offences punishable under} Sections 120(b), 379,467,46a,471,506,^{l8l r/w 34 IPC,} they are not conducting fair and^{proper investigationand} frling appropriate report before the^{concerned Court.}

¶33

Respondent No.2 has filed a detailed^{counter-affidavit} stating that soon after receiving the^{complaint, the} Investigating Oflicer in Crime No.271 of 2022 i.e',^respondent No.4 has examined the petitioner herein,^recordedhis statement and visited the scene of offence,^{drafted observation}

¶34

)

¶35

report of scene of offence and drew rough sketch of the offence in crime detail form. It is further stated that on 1o.11.2022, t5.r1.2022, 20.11.2022, 12.O5.2023 and Oa.O6.2O23, respondent No.4 has contacted the petitioner over phone as he is staying ln Bangalore due to his occupation and requested to furnish certain information relating to witnesses and documents, however the petitioner has not produced the same, which necessiated respondent No.4 to issue a notice to the petitioner as required under Section 9l/160 of Cr.P.C. ot O2.O9.2O23 and soon after receiving the same, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 03.09.2023 giving details of the witnesses, documents and forged cheques and also informed respondent No.4 to read his private complaint as oral statement. It is further stated that soon after receiving the information, respondent No.4 has addressed a letter to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nallavelly Road, Nagarkurnool on 1 1.O9.2O23 requesting to furnish the original cheques bearing No.3013O9 to 301318. It is further stated that the petitioner has furnished all the relevant information on O3.O9.2023 only and respondent No.4 is proceeding with the investigation as expeditiously as possible and after concluding

¶36

t I

¶37

¶38

, investigation, he will file appropriate final report/charge sheet before the concerned Court.

¶39

In view of the said undertaking being furnished by respondent No.2 in his counter affrdavit, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing AS respondent Nos.3 and 4 to conclude the investigation expeditiously as possible and frle charge-sheet, preferably, withih a period of three (3) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

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

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/- MOHD.^{SANAULLAH ANSARI} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE CoPY// s ""

¶43

s "" SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

The Principal^{Secretary,HomeDepartment' Secretariat Buildings'T'S"} Hvderabad.

¶46

, Til*d;ffi;tendent^{of Police, Nqgarkurnool district' Naoarkurnool'}

¶47

The Deputy^{superintenieit-'oip"ori""' NagarkurnoolDivision'Nagarkurnool} dist.. Naqarkumool.

¶48

dist.. Naqarkumool.

¶49

4 iii,;t6ii,;;'iior-J'om".r, iii,;t6ii,;;'iior-J'om".r,^{Nagarkurnoot potic.e Station' Nagarkurnool district.potic.e Station' Nagarkurnool district.Station' Nagarkurnool district.}

¶50

4 iii,;t6ii,;;'iior-J'om".r, iii,;t6ii,;;'iior-J'om".r,^{Nagarkurnoot potic.e Station' Nagarkurnool district.potic.e Station' Nagarkurnool district.Station' Nagarkurnool district.} ;. if i"i;'i;^{-eE; Fon-'norr/l-e,nign court for the state of Telangana' at}

¶51

. I|Jt%",:"g^{A?'JlorotDAR REDDY'Ad vocate toPU cl}

¶52

Two CD^CoPies

¶53

BMGJ 0

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112023

ORDER

WP.No.23424 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

Panduga Shiva Shankar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panduga Shiva Shankar Reddy 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

Kurella Sharadamba Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Santhapuram Anil Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

G. Santosh, Vs The State of Telangana

Ganapavarapu Sharada Vs Guttikonda Vijay

Kelavath Sree Rama Naik, Vs The State of Telangana

N. Madan Mohan Reddy Vs State of Telangana