This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed under Article 226 invoking jurisdiction to challenge inaction regarding alleged forged documents in a criminal case. The dismissal occurred because no representation was filed by the petitioner despite listing the matter for dismissal.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\
[3299 J
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
wRtT PET|T|ON NO. 23515 0F 2015
Between:
Punreddy Narender Reddy, S/o. Late Mohan Reddy, Age 60 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Chinthapally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in not taking action on the Petitioners report dt- 15.07.2015 to take action against
/
/
the Respondent No. 8 for creating false and fabricating docutne:nts by forging the signatures of the alkped panchas in Cr. No. 179 of 2014, dt 11.12.2014 of P.S. Chinthapally by colluding with Respondent No. 9 and taking hritre for thepurpose of filing false case a,; being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional arrd f:r other reliefs and consequently dir:ct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to lake a,:ti,:n irgainst the 8th Respondent who isp'esent Sub-lnspector of Police.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(VVPMP. NO: 30480 OF 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in strpport of the petition, the High Court may br: pleased to pass orders by directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to take actior on the Petitioner's report dt. 15.07 .2O1 5 against the Respondent No. [r for crr:ating false and fabricating document! by forging the signatures of the alleged panchas in Cr. No. 179 of 2O14, dt. 11.12.2014 of P.S. Chinthapally by collu,ling witlr 9tlr Respondent and taking bribe for tle purpose of filing false case pendrng di:;posa of the above said writ petition.
Counsel forthe Petitirner: SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI (NOT PFTESENT) Counsel for the Resp,rndent Nos. 1 to 7: SRI SAI RAM, ,qGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Resp,>ndent No.9: SRI B. BAL REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.8: -
The Court made the f<,llowing: ORDER
7
/
THE HON'BLE SRI .TUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL . WRIT PETITION No.23515 of 2O15
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the follovr.ing relief/s:-
"... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 7 in not taking action on the petitioner's rcport dated 15.O7.2O15 to take action against the respondent No.8 for creating false and fabricating clocuments by forging the sigrratures of the alleged parrchas in Cr.No. 179 of2Ol4, dated 11.12.2O14 of P.S. Chinthapaly by colluding with respondent No.9 and taking bribe for the purpose of hling false case as being iIIegaI, arbitrary, unconstitutional and for other reiiefs arrd consequently dircct the respondent Nos.2 to 7 to take action against thc 8tr, respondent who is present SubInspector of Police a-rtd pass such other order or orders ..."
Pleader for Home.
Miscellareous Petitions, pending rf any, shall stand
clcsed.
'R*%iXitYil'*l!?Hi[ ,TRUECOPY// sF.c#oNoFFlcER
To,
MP L GJP
r{tGr{ couRT
D,ATED i1310912023
1E Litv a
'o<
j
.ir s
")
rlJr
IJ
t- s<br>o\l- E\ .r.^s 7
* ORDER
oof,Ho.r$
WP.1,1o.23515 of 2015
@j!'& )
DISMISSING THE WFII"T I'ETITION AS; INT]TIUCTUOUS \I/ITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 is maintainable when there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner despite the matter being listed for dismissal.
Punreddy Narender Reddy
The State of Telangana
The Director General of Police of Telangana
Inspector General of Police, West Zone
The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda
B.S. Raghavender Reddy
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
