Disposed

Ramavath Srinuvas Nayak v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jan 2024WP/34319/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to police to register a criminal case on the petitioner's complaint dated 18.11.2023 against private respondents. The State reported the complaint was closed as 'civil in nature' after a preliminary enquiry. The petitioner sought only a copy of the closure report; the Court directed its furnishing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SHO Kandukur to furnish a copy of the closure report to the petitioner.

Ramavath Srinuvas Nayak Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 343'19 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ramavath Srinuvas Nayak, S/o. Late Deva Navak, Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No. 4-42 Annajiguda Village, Annajiguda Gram Panchayat, NTR Nagar Tanda, Kandkur Manal, Rangareddy District.

¶9

...pETtTtoNER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Govemment, Home Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad, TS.

¶12

2 The Director General of Police, Telangana State,, Lakidikapul, Hyderabad, TS.

¶13

3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maheshwaram Zone, Ranga Reddy 4 The Asst. Superintendent of Police, Maheshwaram Zone, Ranga Reddy 5 The Station House Officer/Sub-lnspector of Police, Kandukur Police Station Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

t) Suresh Nayak, S/o. Late Deva Nayak, Age 33 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fi/ o. Annajiguda Village, Annaliguda Gram Panchayat, NTR Nagar Tanda, Kandkur Manal, Rangareddy District

¶15

7 Chitti, Wo. Suresh Nayak, Age 28 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Annajiguda Village, Annajiguda Gram Panchayat, NTR Nagar Tanda, Kandkur lVlanal, Rangareddy District

¶16

...REspoNDENTs

¶17

Petition under Article 226 o'f 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction more^particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to declare the in action of the respondents herein,^particularly 3rd respondent to 5th respondents, neither registered the criminal case nor arrest the culprit, i.e., 6th unofficial respondent and 7th unofficial respondents,^pursuant to the^petitioner criminal complaint, dated 18.11.2022, and having the received^{the petitioner} cognizable criminal complaint by the official respondents, and still not^{yet register} the case or arrest the culprits, and same as been illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and^its nothing but misuse of their official^powers and also contrary to Honble Apex Court judgment, i.e. Lalitakumaris Case, and consequently direct the respondents

¶18

herein, particularly 3rd respondent to 5th respondents herein, forthwith register the criminal case, under the appropriate section of law including arrest the 6th unofficial respondent and 7th unofficial respondents, pursuant to the petitioner cognizable criminal complaint on 18.11.2023

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 issue the directions to the respondents herein, particularly 3rd respondent to 5th respondents, forthwith register the criminal case, under the appropriate section of law including arrest the 6th unofficial respondent and 7th unofficial respondents, pursuant to the petitioner cognizable criminal complaint on I g.1 1 .2023 in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the main Writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARAyANA GONTRYALA

¶22

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: AGp FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7: --

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

wRTT PETITION N .34319 of 20 3

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

¶29

"...to issue a writ of Mandat ?ire:tio.n.opurtirutuii::::;:;'r2'!r:;T:;;:;::ri;:-:;:;;":;, to declare the inaction of r e s p o n d e n t t o !ⁿ re s p o nl e I :, ;::i ;: : ":;, lifri, ;, ! "x i fl, l! i r, I " nor arrest the curprit, i.e., 6th unofficiar reipondent ura fl unomriut respondents, pursuant to the petitione, iri^irut ,orpraint, dated: 18.11.2023, and having the received tnu i"titio'ni, cognizabte criminat complaint by the officiat respona"nrr, uii ,iii'n-ot yet register the. clse or. arrest the cutprits,. and same i, t""r' ,,i"i",, arbitrary, unjust, and it,s nothing but misuse of their offiiatl p,i""r, uro utro contrary to "Hon,ble Apex Court judgment, Lalitakumarii,s Case,,, and consequen-tly direct respondents herein, patrticularly 3; respondent to i'e' the f respondents herein, forthwith register the'criminat case, under the appropriate section of law includini uo"it tn" A* unofficial respondent and Vh unofficiat respondents, p;rru;;; to the petitioner cognizable criminal complaint on 18. 11.2023....,,

¶30

2, The case of the petitioner is that he has lodged a written a complaint dated 18.11.2023 against respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the file of respondent No.5 and even though the said complaint reveals aa commission of cognizable offence, till date, no action has been \ taken.

¶31

The learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 has submitted that soon

¶32

¶33

¶34

after receipt of the complaint dated 18.11.2023^-submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.5 has conducted preliminary enquiry, wherein it was revealed that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7 and as such, the complaint of the petitioner was closed as^.,civil in nature,,.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not received the copy of closure report and therefore, sought a direction to the respondent No.5 to serve a copy of closure report to the petitioner to enable him to avail the remedies available under law.

¶36

In view of the above submissions, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.5 to furnish a copy of closure report to the petitioner to enabre him to avair the remedies as available under law.

¶37

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this

¶38

writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶39

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT FEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// V- SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To, 1. The Station House Officer/Sub-lnspector of Police, Kandukur Police Station Ranga Reddy District.

¶41

Qne CC to Sri Narayana Gontryala Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

Two CCs to GP For Home, High Cou( for theState o1 Telangana. [OUT]

¶43

Two CD Copies

MBC GJPw

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110112024

t, .'<
I I L',.1
I ,:r rl' ?
\l;
.lt
l}:,:) t,

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WP.No.34319 of 2023

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶51

ad{A \r,,ir6-r

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS

Ramavath Srinuvas Nayak v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramavath Srinuvas Nayak 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

Shireesha Mahankali Vs The State of Telangana

Kunwar Adil Rizwan Khan Vs The State Of Telangana

Pumpum Vincent Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Sadhineni Srinivas Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Suhana Tabassum Vs The State of Telangana