Quashed

Paradise Peak Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/3836/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court addressed a challenge to the inaction of the Superintendent of Police in registering an FIR following a petitioner's complaint concerning the respondent for offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court considered submissions regarding prior complaints and the existence of an already registered case on similar allegations.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent (Station House Officer) is directed to conduct the investigation in Crime No.350/2023 strictly in accordance with law and file a charge sheet.

Paradise Peak Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I^32e6I

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3836 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Paradise Peak Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at Plot No. 34, 2301D, Main Road, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District - 502318, Rep. by its [/anaging Director - lVlr. lVohammed Sikander Rayees, S/o. Mohammed Rafeeq Baba, aged 29 years, R/o. D.No.^{'13-1-12331281171A,} Natraj Nagar, Kulsumpura, Hyderabad - 500067

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

Director General of Police, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Sanga Reddy District.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Zaheerabad Town Police Station, Zaheerabad, Sanga Reddy District.

¶16

Ram Mohan Chinta, S/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Plot No.419, Ravuri Nilayam, Road No.'14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034, Also at. R/o. Flat No.102, Paramila Banjara, Road No.'10, Gowri Shankar Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500034.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent in acting on the Petitioner's complaint dated 02.O2.2024 against the inaction of the 4th respondent in registering F-1.R. pursuant to the Petitioner's complaint dated 19.12.2023 against the Sth respondent for the offences under sections 406, 42O l.P.C., as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 direct the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 02.o2.2024 against the inaction of the 4th respondent in registering F.l.R. pursuant to the Petitioner's complaint dated 19.12.2023 against the 5th respondent for the offences under sections 406, 42o l.p.c., pending disposar of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.pRADEEp KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3836 of 2024

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent in acting on the Petitioner's complaint dated 02.02.2024 against the inaction of the 4th respondent in registering^F.I.R. pursuant to the Petitioner's complaint dated 19.12.2023 against the th respondent for the offences under sections 406, 420 LP.C., as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Ind ia... "

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 19.12.2023 on the file of respondent No.4 for taking necessary action against the respondent No.5 and even though the said complaint reveals commission of cognizable offence, the respondent No.4 did not register a case following the procedure contemplated under Section 154 Cr.P.C and also the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of ll.P and otherst. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation

¶29

' lzor:1 r+ s& fi3

¶30

¶31

dated 02.02.2024 on the file of respondent No.3 and even then, till date no action has been taken.

¶32

Per contra, the learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 has submitted that with regard to the same subject matter, earlier the petitioner had submitted a complaint and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.350/2023 dated 06.11.2023 for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 IPC against the respondent No.5 and others and the investigation is in progress. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 also lodged a complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.306/2023 dated 06.10.2023 for the offences under Section 427 and 447 IpC and the investigation is in progress. It is further submitted that in view of registration of FIR No.350/2023 on similar allegations, the complaint dated 19.12.2023 has not been acted upon. It is also submitted that pursuant to the representation dated 02.02.2024 submitted to the respondent No.3, the respondent No.4 has informed the petitioner that already FIR No.350/2023 was registered on the same allegations and investigation is in progress and iF any further clues/evidence comes-forth against respondent

1 I

No.5 herein in Crime No.350/2023 necessary action would be taken by adding or altering the section of law.

¶37

In view of the above submissions, the respondent No.4 is directed to conduct the investigation in Crime No.35 O/2023 strictly, in accordance with law and file appropriate report/charge sheet, before the concerned Court.

¶38

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

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

¶40

shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶41

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT GI R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, Home Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad, Stateof} Telanoana.

¶46

2 Direct6r General of Police, Government^{of Telangana,Hyderabad.} 3 The Superintendent of Police, Sanga^{Reddy District.} - 4 The Stdtion House Officer, Zaheerabad^{Town PoliceStation,Zaheerabad'} Sanga Reddy District.

¶47

4 One-CC to SRI J.PRADEEP KIRAN,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

6 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High^{Court fortheState of Telangana,at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

7 Two CD Copies

¶50

PSK.

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910312024

ORDER

WP.No.3836 of 2024

s lFlE S14 14:
c
k
s(
L)t 0 4 tpn nlq a
.2l
* o
PATCHeO *

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶58

I
tD4

Paradise Peak Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paradise Peak Pvt. Ltd. v. 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

Vankudoth Susheela Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Mr. Chippakurthy Narayana Vs State of Telangana

Theodore Aloysius Emanuel Vs State of Telangana

Kothapalli Uppalaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Beeshmanth Kotamreddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bobbali Shankar Reddy Vs The State of Telengana