Disposed

Tallapak Divya Mounika, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Nov 2023WP/23683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CrPC, the petitioner sought directions to the police and State Government to act upon a complaint of domestic violence and dowry harassment not considered by authorities. The court directed the petitioner to submit a copy of the complaint to the Station House Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit copy of complaint to SHO; Respondent No.2 to examine complaint and take action upon receipt.

Tallapak Divya Mounika, Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY oF NoVEI\i,IBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO:23 683 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tallapak Divya Mo_unika, wo. T. Sirish Kumar, D/o. K. srinivasa Rao (Late). fs^eit..z7.year_s,^{Occ. House Wife, Manea The Saton,} o.fvo.i_saildnia', SSR Lalitha Comptex, .2nd Ftoor, Beside Sree ea(eis,^{-S"ritingir;ifiy,} Ameenpur Road, Hyderabad-500 050, Telangana

AND

...PETITIONER

1 The State of T-elangana, R_ep by its the principal Secretary to covernment. D_ep-artment of Home, 5th Floor, A Block, Telangana Secr6tariat, Hyderabad500022

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad tVletropolitan police, Near Care Hospital, [\4ain Road, cachibowli, Hyderabad-5b0032

¶14

The Station House Officer, Chanda Nagar police Station, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad-500050

¶15

Tallap_ak Sirish(umar, S/o. Tallapak Vijaya Kumar (Late), Aged: 38 years, pcc._S_o{tyygreJngineer at Accenture, Fta't No.202, Avani Apirtments, ' ptoi No.95D HlG, Opp. Aparna Sarovar, Nalagandla, Hyderabad-soo 019

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 seeking prayer in main Writ Petition is issue a writ, direction or order particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declare the inaction of the Respondents No.1 to 3 in considering the complaint offerrce U/Sec 324, 49g-A, 42O,506 Read with section 34 of tPC given by the petitioner Dt.19-7 -2023 against the respondent No.4 as illegal arbitrary capricious and violation of fundamental Rights and violation of principle of natural Justice under Article j 4, 19,21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and Consequenfly Direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to act upon complaint U/Sec 324,498-A,420, 506 Read with section 34 of IPC dated 19-7-2023 given by the petitioner against the respondent No.4 Tallapak Sirish Kumar, Tallapak Nirmala, Arza Usha Rani @ Prathysha, Arza Venkat Ramana and others forthwith.

¶18

lA NO:¹ OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to act upon complaint dt.jg-7-2o23 given by the petitioner against the respondent No. 4 and others forthwith.

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to provide Police Protection to the petitioner and her running SPAI Business [/anea The Salon, D.No_1-36/1i 121446, SSR Lalitha Complex, 2nd Floor, Beside Sree Bakers, Serilingampally, Ameenpur Road, Hyderabad-500 050, Telangana.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.O. RAJA VEER

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 3: GP FOR HOME

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - - - -

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BIIASKAR REDDY

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.23683 Of. 2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in not considering the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 19.O7.2023 against respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, direct respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to act upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner.

¶30

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.4 and their marriage was performed on 2O.O3.2O 1 1, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, she was aged 15 years and out of wedlock, they were blessed with a male child in the year, 20 16 and thereafter, disputes arose between her and respondent No.4. It is the further case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, her parents gave net cash of Rs.9,OO,OOO/-, 5O tulas of gold and other household articles and marriage expenses towards dowry and also Rs.1,OO,OOO/- as Aadapaduchu lanchanam and having not been satisfied with the same, respondent No.4 started harassing her physically, mentally and sexually and that there is -- -^{a seriouslife thgat to her in the hands of respondent No.4 and} his family members. Stating the above said facts, she lodged a

¶31

¶32

complaint before respondent No.2 on 19.O7.2023. The^grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the said^complaint which discloses cognizable offence, respondent No.2 has^neither acted upon the said complaint nor registered^any case^against respondent No.4,

¶33

l,earned counsel for the petitioner has^vehemently contended that once the complaint, which discloses cognizable offence has been submitted, the respondents-police are duty bound to register the complaint under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. He further contended that any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an Oflicer, who is in charge of a police station to record information referred to in sub-section ( 1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C. may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satished that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner prescribed under Cr.P.C. He further contended that even after receipt of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has neither forwarded the same to respondent No.3 nor acted upon the same.

¶34

¶35

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3 has submitted that even though the petitioner alleges to have lodged a complaint before respondent No.2, however, respondent No.3 has not received the same and if the petitioner submits a fresh complaint before respondent No.3, respondent No.3 would take immediate action on his complaint in accordance with law.

¶36

In view of the said submissions, this Court, deems it appropriate to dispose of the 'a,rit petition, directing the petitioner to submit a copy of his complaint, dated lg.OZ.2O23 before respondent No.3 and on receipt of such complaint, respondent No.2 is directed to examine the same ald take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law.

¶37

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

¶38

7 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶39

stand closed

¶40

SD/- P. CH.^{N|ACABXUSHATT'Ba} I ASSISTANT REGISIRAR I ('. ,/ //TRUE^COPY// Mt' SECTION^OFFICER

¶41

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary to Government, Department of-{9T^e' Stateof Telangana'} iitirro'oi. l-arbck,^{TelinganaSecretariat' Hvderabad-500022}

¶42

1. The Commissioner^{of Police, cioit"'l6JryrSit"pJitinpotice' Near CareHospital'} Main Road, Gachibowli,^{Hyderabad-5uuuJZ}

¶43

J. Tiii stl"tirli^{F6r".oni""ricnJnoa nigar policestation' chandaNasar'}

¶44

3l1"6t?S3ffitl:3.^{RAJAvEER, AdvocateroP^UCl} 5. ;;; ;6.'i"-Gi'ion^{uoN'rE, riigh c""t iti the State of relansanalouTl} 6. Two CD CoPies BN GJ k

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11112023

I E ST r E o
o
.1,
i 2j utr zrt
t rt
& spN

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.23683 ot 2023

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

a^c{r&5 w- -ft#'

Tallapak Divya Mounika, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tallapak Divya Mounika, 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

Nandigama Prabhu Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Komirelli Lalitha Vs The State of Telangana

Lalas Cafe and Bistro Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Ayesha Banu Vs The state of Telangana

Untrammelled Solutions Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Chougoni Anjali @ Chougoni Anjamma Vs The State of Telangana