Dismissed

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC23 Jan 2024WP/27511/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the failure to register complaints and provide police protection. The Court dismissed the petition because the complaint lacked the petitioner's residential address, though a fresh complaint can be filed if threats persist. No order on costs.

What did the court decide?

WB PETITION DISMISSED with liberty to file fresh written complaint if threats exist. No order as to costs.

Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs The State of Telangana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2751'l OF 201s

¶7

Between:

¶8

Subhash Chandra Sharma, S/o. Late Ram Chandra Sharma, Aged about 43 years, Occ Business, Ri/o. Bellampally, Adilabad District. I ...PETrroNER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

The Station House Officer, Bellampally, Adilabad.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District.

¶13

...RES'ONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the^High 'Court^maybe pleased to lssue order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents herein^{considering the} complaint dt- 12-09-2014 and 12-08-2015 seeking the registration^{of crimeand} protection to the life and personal liberty as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution^{of lndia}

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2015{wP MP. NO: 35729 OF 2015

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the respondents herein to register^{the complaintdt: 14-08-201 5 seeking} registration of case and^protection to the life^{and personal liberty}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. RAGHUNATH

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I I

¶21

I t

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶23

I4/RIT PETITION No.275l I o 2015

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the Court to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the complaints dated 12.9.2014 and 14.8.2015 of the petitioner for registration of the case and for providing police protection to himself and his family members, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that he submitted a complaint dated 14.8.2015 stating that one Mr. Raju Chowdary, who is a resident of Bellampally, ls unnecessarily interfering with the business activities of the petitioner. and threatening him with dire consequences.. It is the further case of the petitioner that earlier also, he lodged a complaint dated 12.9.2014, but the said complaint was not registered and taking advantage of the same, the said assailant increased the torture and openly threatened the petitioner Further, as the said person tried to take revenge against the petitioner by illegal methods, the petitioner sought to provide

¶27

necessary protection to his life and liberty.

¶28

¶29

CYBR, J lltP.No.27 51 I of 2015

¶30

Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the

¶31

respondents-State, on instructions, would submit that the complaint alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner dated 14.8.2015 through registered post does not contain the residential address of the petitioner so as to enable the respondents-Police to contact the petitloner.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh written complaint on the file of the respondents-Police, if he still faces threat perception from the assailant/s, and if any cornplaint is lodged by the petitioner, the respondents-Police shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶34

shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT IS

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1 The PrinciDal Secretary,^{Home Department,Secretariat' T'S} 'Hyderabad' 2 ftre Statioh House Officer,^{Bellampally,Adilabad'} 3 ine Superintendent^{of Police, Adilabad District'} 4 iwl;cJ6^{'cFFon Hor'rtE',nigh court for the State of relansana' at} 5 3I1"68?i^{8*Y]li? *u, u NArH,Advocateto pu cl} 6 Two CD CoPies I BM

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310112024

ORDER

i
$
*

<-i-Z ; rA 16l
)(:)
r.)
'') Z
I-l 14 | i;J T,fr{ .c-)
:a- .t..

¶45

WP.No.27511 of 2015

¶46

iU
il
,'2
f;
LT,

¶47

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. The State of Telangana, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tadigiri Arujun Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ajay Katta Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Abdul Gaffar Vs The State of Telangana

Meghvath Alivelu Mangamma Vs The State of Telangana

Upadey Laxman, Vs The State of Telangana

Amgoth Asha Vs The State of Telangana