Disposed

Oruganti Sammireddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Oct 2024WP/14107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging non-registration of complaints against officials and a miscellaneous petition. The court observed lack of evidence in the initial complaint and the registration of a reciprocal case against the petitioner. It closed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed without further orders. The petitioner was given liberty to approach the appropriate legal remedies if aggrieved by the closure.

Oruganti Sammireddy Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

l ri

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURI FOR THE 57 .A^{r HYDERfJiDoFTELANGANA} ( Dpec,at O rigin al Jurisdiction)

¶4

t^s183 l

¶5

Ig!.s^D4Y rHE FTRST DAY OF OcroBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶8

WRIT P ETITION NO :14107 oF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Oruganti Samm ireddy, S/o_ Kanakareddy Aged 62 years, Occuoation Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1District. 5. Dammakkapet, Huiuraoal nir"iijr Giiii';;ilr

¶11

AND

¶12

..,PETITIONER

¶13

rriv'|Hv' vvv

¶14

'1. The State of Telanoana, rep by its principal Secretary Home Department, ^^{Tetangana Secreta-riat, uv,jlijoao} 2. The Superintenaent of pdlii",-X"rrnrgrr, Karimnagar District 3 The stdtion House officel n-rii,il'nl['p?iriJetiatron. Karimnagar District. 4. Sri Vasanth Rao, Son-of not f<nown O tfr. p?iiionu, aged about 52 vears.. -^{Piglr.,..t Civil SupptyOffice.Karimnagiirorn';nldoistiici rotrrcia} c. bn vtnoo, lion ot not known to the petitioner aged about 56 years., District ^^{911S-lqpt1Office, Karimna_gar Town and Distiict.lOfficiitj} b. Hanlgantr satyanarayana. s/o Venkata tvraflaiah aqed about 60 vears.. occ. uustness and resident H.No..l3_3.1, Super Bazar Aiea, Huzuraba'd, Karimnagar District. (Lease Holder)

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No. 3 in not registering the cases of the petitioner herein, on the complaint dated 22.4.2024 against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the complaint dated 22.4.2024 against Respondent No.6, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to register the cases against Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as per the complaints dated 22.4.2024.

¶17

lA NO: I oF²⁰²⁴

¶18

Petition under^{Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{fired in support of the petition,th6 High court may be preased to direct} the Respondent^{No.3 to registerthe cases agaimtRespondentNos'4' 5 and 6 as} per the complaints dated^{22-4'2024 pendingdispbsal of the writ petition'}

¶19

Counsel forthe^{Petitioner:SRI IUI.RAMMOHAN REDDY} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.l TO 3: AGP FOR HOME} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos-4 TO 6:} -

¶20

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶21

t^,1'1.1 ...*. .1,.,''^'--v

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSENREDDY} WRIT PETITION No.14107 of²⁰²⁴

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The writ petition is filed aggrieved by^{the action of the} respondent No.3 In not registering^{the complaintof the petitioner} dated 22.04.2024 against^{respondents No.4 to 6.}

¶26

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home, on the} basis of written instructions,^{submittedthat on 23-O4.2024,} a complaint was received through^{registered post from the} petitioner alleging that the civil supplies^{officials Sri VasanthaRao} and Sri Vinod criminally^{intimidatedhim and forcibly tookhis} signatures against^{his will on acknowledgement and undertaking} regarding rice mill i.e.^{ParameshwaraIndustries, Pedda Papaihpalli} Viltage, even after it^{vias leasedout. On receipt of the above} complaint, GD entry^{was made and durinq the enquiry,the Station} House Officer, Huzurabad^{Police Station, wentto the house of the} petitioner but he was not^{present in the village' On enquiry.it was} found that there is no^{evidenceagainst Civil SuppliesofFicialsand} the petitioner did not cite^{any witnesses.}

¶27

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader further submittedthat} during the enquiry^{of the Station House Officer it was revealedthat} the petitioner^{leased outhis} rice mill to one Panuganti Sathyanarayana^{Rao in the year 2016 and after that the lease was}

¶28

I \

¶29

¶30

not extended. On securlng the presence of the petitioner and documents given by him, the further enquiry revealed that the rice mill was leased out only for a period of only from O4.1.2.2OL6 onwards and after one year the petitioner and Panuganti Sathyanaryana did not extend the lease agreement and the rice mill was under the control of the petitioner. The allegations made by the petitioner were not proved and further action was dropped.

¶31

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home further submitted that on the complaint lodged by one M. Rajanikanth, District Manager of the Civil Supplies Depadment, a case in Cr.No.217 of 2024 of Huzurabad Police Station was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner got anticipatory baif from this Court in CRLP.No.673O of 2024 vide order- dated 22.07.2024 with a condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and furnish necessary documents/evidence in support of his case. The petitioner complied with the conditions of anticipatory bail on 30.07.2024. Charge sheet was filed in the said case on 30.O4.2024 and the same is pending trial vide C.C.No.1110 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

¶32

¶33

¶34

In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition and it is accordingly closed. Howevel the petitioner is given liberty to avail app'ropriate legal remedies if he is aggrieved by the closure of his complaint.

¶35

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. . rt}> SD/- T. JAY EE ,d, ASSISTAN E ,/TRUE GOPY// SE OFFIGER

¶36

To 1. One CC to SRI M.RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Te angana, at Hyderabad. [OUTJ 3. Two CD Copies PSK. I;S b

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:0111012024

ORDER

oE
C
$b !'\ ,ffi
o
I

WP.No.14107 of 2024

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶44

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶45

@,,i8 fu,"

Oruganti Sammireddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oruganti Sammireddy 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

D.Rajavardhan Reddy, Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Rayees Vs The State of Telangana

Alagala Franklin Sanjay Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

K.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Abbagani Kanakalatha Vs The State of Telangana

S. Prasanna Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana