Disposed

Mohammed Sami Khan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2024WP/2985/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the Station House Officer at Doma police station to receive the petitioner's complaint, conduct an enquiry and register an FIR in line with Lalita Kumari guidelines. Police stated no complaint was on record; the Court directed the petitioner to lodge a fresh complaint for action as per law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a fresh complaint; respondent No.2 to act on it in accordance with law if it reveals a cognizable offence.

Mohammed Sami Khan Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

t^32s6 J

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REODY

¶6

I WRIT PETITION NO: 2985 OF 2024 Ian, S/o Mohammed Akber Khan Aged About 44years,

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Sami Occ Agriculture, PJo.19-2-21lDl23l1lA, Amjed Daula Bagh,Charminar ,Hyderabad^Telan Jana | ...PETITIONER AND I 1. The State of Telahgana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶9

The lnspector of police P.S Doma, Vikarabad.

¶10

The Collector, O/olCollectorate , Vikarabad ,District.

¶11

The Revenue Dividional Officer, Doma mandal, Vikarabad District .

¶12

The Tahasildar, Ddma mandal, Vikarabad District .

¶13

The Mandal Surveyor, Doma mandal, Vikarabad District .

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Ardcle 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated^liJ the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Whtl of Mandamus, directing Respondent No.2 to promptly receive the complaint,ⁱ ctnduct an enquiry, and register a crime if necessary, in adherence to the guideli h"s established in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP. Urgency arises dJe to the potential risks associated with the delayed response. The petition!il seets redressed for^justice and^public order, relying on the inherent^powers ofltili. Honorr"ble court rl

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition unde r Se[tion 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated I in the affidavit filed in'sdpport of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} I direct the the responderits No.2 receive the complaint,^{conduct -an enquiry,and} I register a crime if necessary, in adherence. to the^{guidelines establishedin the} I case of Lalita Kumari vsf State of UP.and take^{necessaryaction as per law} I Counsel for the Petitiorler: SRl. MD FASIUDOIN I Counsel for the ResponUents: GP FOR^REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.298 S of 2o24

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This writ petition is filed praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to receive the complaint, conduct an enquiry and register a crime, if necessary, in adherence to the guidelines issu ed by the Honble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Stolte oJ tlttar Pradeshl.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he had lodged a written complaint, dated 12.01.2024, to respondent No.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that when respondent No.2 refused to receive the complaint, he also sent the complaint to the Superintendent of police through registered post, requesting him to register the complaint. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after receiving the complaint, respondent No.2 and the Superintendent of Police are not registering any case.

I lzot<1 z scc r

*r rrlY?bj

l,earned counsel^{for the petitioner has vehemently} contended^{that as per sub-section 3 of Section 154 of} Cr.P.C.^{any personaggrievedby a refusal on the part of an} offrcer-in-charge^{of apolice station torecord the} information^{referred to insub-section (1) may send the} substance^{of such information,in writingand by post' to} the Superintendent^{of Police concernedwho' ifsatisfied} that such^{informationdiscloses the commission ofa} cognizable^{offence, shall either investigatethe case himself} or direct an^{investigationto be made by any police officer} subordinate^{to him' in the manner providedby Cr'P'C' and} suchofficershallhaveallthepowersofanofficer_in-charge of the^{policestationin relation to that offence'It is further} submitted^{thatrespondentNo'2 is notfollowed the} procedure contemplated^{under Section 154 of Cr'P'C' and} also the^{guidelinesissued by the Hon'lcleApex Court in} Lalita Kumari's^{ccse (suPra)'}

¶26

Learned Assistant^{Government PleaderforHome} appearing for^{respondent Nos' 1 and 2, on instructions'} would submit that^{as per the stationrecords of respondent}

CVBR, J Wp 2985 2024

No.2, so far the complaint submitted by the petitioner is not received and if any fresh complaint 1S Iodged by the petitioner, the police will examine the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law, if the same would reveal cognizable offence.

¶31

In view of the above submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh complaint to respondent No.2 and if such complaint reveals cognizable offence, respondent No.2 is directed to act upon the same in accordance with law.

¶32

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

¶33

7 . As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶34

any, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/- P. PADMANABHA R DY ASSISTANT REGI RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal S tary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The lnspector of Pdlice P.S Doma, Vikarabad 3 The Collector, O/olCollectorate , Vikarabad ,District 4 The Revenue Dividona I Officer, Doma mandal, Vikarabad District 5 The Tahasildar, Dclma mandal, Vikarabad District . b The Mandal Surveror, Doma mandal, Vikarabad District . 7 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI I

¶40