Dismissed

B.Balakrishna Chowdhary v. The State of Telanganan, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023WP/26165/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging the registration of an FIR based on a false complaint, the High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous. The Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Sessions Court had acquitted the petitioner in the originating case in 2020, rendering the writ petition unnecessary. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous without costs.

B.Balakrishna Chowdhary Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

wRtT PET|T|ON NO. 26165 0F 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Balakrishna Chowdhary, S/o lndrasena Rao, aged about 38^years, occ Reserve Sub-lnspector of Police, Rl/o BN. A.P.S.P., Kakinada, East Godavari District

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telanganan, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department ,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad.}

¶12

2.^lThe Station House Officer Uppal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

D.Durga Kumari, D/o Prasad Achary, aged 34^years, R/o H.No.3-3-5i30/'l , Bharatnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 o't the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmaybe} 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 2nd^respondentin registering the FIR in Cr.No. 679 of 2015 dt. 17-7-2015 basing^on the^false complaint given by the 3n'l respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary^{and unjustand} consequently set aside the same.

¶16

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 33981 OF 2015)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HighCourt maybe pleasedto grant} stay of all further^{proceedings including the arrest of the petitionerin Cr.No.} 67912015 on the file of the^2nd respondent^{herein, pending disposalof the main} Writ Petition, in the interest^{of justice.}

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(WV MP. NO: 3658 OF 2015)

¶19

Between:

¶20

The State of Telanganan, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶21

The Station House Officer Uppal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶23

AND

¶24

1 B.Balakrishna Chowdha ry, S/o lndrasena Rao, Aged 38 years, Occ: Reserve Sub-lnspector of Police, RYo B.N. A.P.S.P., Kakinada, East Godavari District

¶25

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶26

D.Durga Kumari, D/o. Prasad Achary, Aged 34^years, Rl/o H.No.3-3-5/30/1 , Bharatnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

¶27

(The Respondent No.2 is not necessary party in this petition)

¶28

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶29

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petltion, the High Court may be pleased Vacate the interim , order dated 19.08.2015^pass6d in W.P.M.P. No. 33981 of 2015 in W.P.No.26 l65 o'f 2015.

¶30

l.A. NO: 2 OF 201SOVVMP. NO: 3991 OF 2015 )

¶31

Between:

¶32

D.Durga Kumari, D/o Prasad Achary, aged 34^years, Rl/o H.No.3-3-5/30/1 , Bharatnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

¶33

....PARry-IN-PERSON

¶34

AND

¶35

t_ B.Balakrishna Chowdhary, S/o lndrasena Rao, aged 38 years, Occ: Reserve Sub lnspector of Police, Rl/o. B.N. A.P.S.P., Kakinada, East Godavari District

¶36

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶37

The State of Telanganan, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶38

The Station House Officer Uppal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶40

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 vaiate the interim stay order dqted 19.08.2015^passed in W.P.l\il.P.No.^{339 81 of} 2015in WP No. 26165 of 2015 and dismiss the above writ^{petitionin the interest} of^justice

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA SAI KRISHNA PONNURU (NOT PRESENT)

¶42

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI SAIRAM, AGP REP. GP FOR HOME

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI^(NOT PRESENT) SMT. D.DURGA KUMARI, PARTY-IN.PERSON

¶44

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶45

¶46

) \

¶47

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION NO.26165 OF 2015

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

The petitioner filed the present Writ Petirion under Article 226 of the Cor-rstitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Maldamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in registering FIR No.679 of 2OI5, dated 17.07.2015 against the petitioner herein on the basis of complaint given by respondent No.3 for the oflences punrshable under Section 376 A, 341 and 506 of IPC as iilegal, arbitrzlr. and unjust ancl to set aside the saIne.

¶50

No representation for learned counsei for the petitioner Sri Ponnuru Vcnkata Sai Krishna. Heard Sri Sairam, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Government Pleader for Home. No representation for learned counsel for the unofficiai respondent Pulla Rao Ya11anki.

¶51

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, by submitting a copy of judgment irr Sessions Case No.483 of 2017, sprouted from the subject marter cr.ime i.e. FIR No.679 of 2OI5, submits that the said case was ended in acquittal as per judgement dated

i)agc 2 of2

30.O9.2020 on the file of the learned II Special Sessions Judge for Triai of Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-XVIII Additionai District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Redcly District at LB Nagar', acquitting the petitioner herein frorn the charges rvith which he rvas charge-sheeted and irence, no orders in the present Writ Petition are required ald requested to dismiss the same as infructuous.

¶56

in vierv of the subr-nissions made by learned Assistarrt Governrnent Pleader and upon perusing the photocopy of ttre judgment in SC No.4B3 of 2017, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Writ Petition as infructuous.

¶57

In the result, this Writ petition is disrnissed as infructuous without.costs. Inrerlocutorv appiications, if any pending in this Writ Petition, shall also dismissed.

¶58

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶59

To,

¶60

One CC to SRI VENKATA SAI KRISHNA PONNURU, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶61

One CC to SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to SMT. D.DURGA KUMARI, PARTY-IN-PERSON [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

MP GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310612023

SE Si4f F
) I'
) 16 [lJB 2tr8
<br>* i
.tE,)ATc!
ORDER

¶67

)

¶68

WP.No.26165 of 2015

¶69

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

ey cu
O AA 9

B.Balakrishna Chowdhary v. The State of Telanganan, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Balakrishna Chowdhary v. The State of Telanganan, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panathala Murali Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Syed Zaffar Hussain Bilgrami, Vs The State of Telangana

Gudiga Raju Yadav, Vs The S.H.O., W.P.S.

Dandu Kanakaiah,Hyd and Another Vs Public Prosecutor,Hyd and Another

K.Chandrakala, W/o. K.Jalandhar Vs The State of Telangana

Taufeeq Ahmed Azhar Vs the State of A.P. and 2 Others