Disposed

Smt. Muthyala Prameela v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Oct 2024WP/19485/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the police action in not registering an FIR. The Court closed the petition without orders on costs, leaving parties to avail appropriate legal remedies if aggrieved by the police closure report.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed without orders on costs; petitioner granted liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy if aggrieved.

Smt. Muthyala Prameela Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[3183 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19485 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Muthyala Prameela, W/o. tr/uthyala Venkateshwarlu, D/o. Pasupuleti Buchaiah, aged 64 years, Occ ; Agriculture, R/o.H.No.16-3-498/4 Pathapocharam, Garla village and Mandal, lv'lahabubabad District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, [Vlahabubabad, lVlahabubabad District.

¶13

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, [Vlahabubabad, IVahabubabad District.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Garla Police Station, Garla. Mahabubabad District.

¶15

Bhukya Saidanayak, S/o. not known to the petitioner, aged major Occ. Govt Teacher, Goyini Thanda, Maadaram Village Karepalli Mandalam, Mahabubabad District.

¶16

Bhanothu Raghu, S/o. Veeranaik, Aged 38 years, R/o. Goyini Thanda, Maadaram Village Karepalli lvlandalam, Mahabubabad District.

¶17

Bhanothu Nageswara Rao, S/o.Erra Nayak, aged 35 years, Rt/o. Goyini Thanda, Maadaram Village, Karepalli Mandalam, Mahabubabad District.

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe 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 the respondents police in not registering the FIR basing on the complaints dated 1 l.05.2024, requesting to take action against the unofficial respondents 5 to 7, the respondents police not

¶20

registering any FIR against the culprits after receipt of the complaint vide acknowledgment dated 09.07.2021 is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of apex court rulings held in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP and ors and as well as Cr.p.C and consequently direct the respondents police to register the FIR basing on the complaint of the petitioner dated t 1.05.2024 against the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 in the interest of^justice.

¶21

LA.NO:1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents police to register the FIR basing on the comptaint of the petitioner dated 1 1 .o5.2024 to take action against the unoff icial respondents 5 to 7 immediately, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l to 4 : GP FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 7 : -

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER

I I

THE HON,BLE^{SRI ]USTTCE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY} WRIT PETITION^{No'19485 of 2O24}

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The writ^{petition is filed to declare the action of the} respondent^{No.4 in not registering FIR against the respondents} No.5 to 7^{pursuantto the complaint of the petitionerdated} 11.O5.2024,^{as being arbitrary and illegal'}

¶33

Learned Assistant^{Government Pleader for Home' on the} basisofwritteninstructions,submittedthatthecomplaintofthe petition was received^{by the respondent No 4 on 29'05'2024and} GDentrywasmade.Aftercomplet|onofenquiry,thepetitionerwas suggested^{to approachthe competentcivil Court for redressal of his} grievance. The complaint^{of the petitioner was closed as civil in} nature on 02.06.2024^{and the same was informedto the petitioner} through Petition^{ManagementSystem'}

¶34

Copy of the^{written instructions along with the closure report} is served on^{the learned counsel for the petitioner'}

¶35

4.Inviewoftheabove,nofurtherordersarerequiredtobe passed in the writ^{petition and it is accordingly closed' However'} the petitioner^{is givenliberty to avail appropriate legal remedy'} if aggrieved^{by the closure report'}

¶36

¶37

¶38

The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶39

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District. 4. The Station House Officer, Gada Police Station, Garla, Mahabubabad District. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. One CC to SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISET|Y, Advocate TOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies SA GJP ( al-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811012024

ORDER

WP.No.19485 of 2024

i iiB .r,^./
o
c
() 27 L" 202t
*
DAr
iL

¶46

CLOSING THE W.P

¶47

WITHOUT COSTS.

Smt. Muthyala Prameela v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Muthyala Prameela v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kottapally Ravi @ Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Balaji Estates India Private Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Colours Utsav Mela Handloom Vs State Of Telangana

Mr.Mandadi Raghavendar Reddy Vs M/s. Anish Educational Society (Aes)

Smt. Margam Sandhya Rani Vs Smt Pamela Satpathy

Smt. P. Rukmini Yadav Vs Mekala Sitaram Reddy