Partly allowed

Ajmeera Poojitha v. The Station House Officer

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/4382/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging a notice issued by the police to close a complaint for lack of evidence. The High Court set aside the notice, allowing the petitioner to furnish evidence, and directed the lower authorities to conduct a fresh investigation in accordance with procedural guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the notice dated 12.11.2023; direct respondent No.1 to conduct fresh investigation within four weeks upon receipt of relevant evidence.

Ajmeera Poojitha Vs The Station House Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF^IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:4382 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Aimeera Pooiitha. W/o Aimera Jaqan,^{Aqed about 30 years, Occ Housewife,} HlNo. t -zslslgl1, Plot No. 22, Srinivaia^{Nagar, Street No. 2, Boduppal, Ranga Reddy} Dlstrict - 500092.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Station House Officer, Medipalli,^{Rachakonda Commissionerate,Medchal} - IVlalkajgiri District.

¶14

2 The Commissioner, Rachakonda Commissionerate^{(Beside Malkajgiri Court} Complex) Neredmet, Hyderabad^{- 500056.}

¶15

J The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its PrincipalSecretary, Home Department,} Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

4 K. Krishnaiah, Sub- inspector, Age^{and S/o not known to the Petitioner, Sub-} lnspector of Police, Medipalli^{Police Station, Medipalli,Rachakonda} Commissionerate, Medchal^{- MalkajgiriDistrict.}

¶17

5 Aimeera Jaqan, S/o Bhikku, Age^{40 years, Occ.l\ilanagerEmp.No. 544922,} C'anara Ban"k, Viiayapuri South,^{NagdrjunaSagar, lr/acherla Mandal, Guntur} District, A.P.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226^of the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order, or Direction,^{more particularly one in natureof writ} of cERTIoRARI calling for^{records pertaining to Notice, dt. 1211112023,issued by} 1st Respondent and^{quash the same as illegal and violativeof ratio laid down by} Supreme Court of lndia in^{Lalitha Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. & Ors reportedin 2012} (4) SSC llAlR 2012 (SC) 1515^{and consequentlydirect the 1st Respondent to} Register FIR against Respondent^{No.5,ln pursuanceof criminalcomplaintdt.}

l t,

0410612023 of the Writ Petitioner in view of the directions of Supreme Court of lndia in Lalitha Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. & Ors reported in 2012 (4) SSC 1/AlR 2012 (SC)^'1 5'i 5 and further, this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 & 3 to take a disciplinary action against 4th Respondent for his connivance with the 5th Respondent in closing the Criminal complaint, dl.O4lOOl2023, filed by the Writ Petitroner as closed as lack of evidence in spite of ample evidence by way of CC Tv photos and other oral evidence of neighbours.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support ot the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to Register FIR against Respondent No.5, in view of the ratio laid by the Supreme Court of lndia in Lalitha Kumari and Ors reported in 2012 (4) SCC 1/AlR 2012 (SC) 1515 in pursuance of Criminal Compliant dt. 0410612023, by suspending Notice, dt.'1211 112023, on the file of 1st Respondent.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : GP FOR HOME

¶28

Counsel for the Resfondents No.5 :

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

e Y

¶31

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

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.4382 of 2o24

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶35

India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief

¶36

"...to issue^q Wit, Order, or Direction, more partianlarlg one in nature of Wnt of CERTIORARI catling for records pertaining to Notice, dt: 121 1'2023, issued bg 1"t Respondent and quash the same as illegal and uiolatiue of rqtio laid dotun by Supreme Court oJ Indict in Lalitha Kumari us Gout. oJ U.P. & Ors reported in 2012 (4) SSC I/AIR 2012 (SC) 1515 and consequentLg direct the lst Respondent to Register FIR ogoinst RespotLdent No.S. In pursuance of Ciminal Complaint dt:0406 2023 of the Wit Petitioner in uteut of the directions of Supreme Court of lndia trt Lctlithct Kumai us Gout. of U.P. & Ors reported in 2012 (4) SSC l,/A1R 2012 (SC) 1515 and further, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 & 3 to take a disciplinary octrcn against 4th Respondent for his conniuance uith the sth Respondent in closing the Ciminql complaiftt, dt: 4-06-2023, fited bg the Wit Petitioner as^"closed as tack of evidence" in spite of ample euidence bg wag of CC Tu photos and other oral euldence of rtetghbours and inthe Interest of Justlce..."

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 04.06.2O23 on the file of respondent No.1 for taking necessary action against the respondent No.5 and even though the said complaint reveals commission of cognizable offence, the respondents-police instead of registering the case following the procedure contemplated under

l iI I I I.

Section 154 Cr.P.C and also the guiclclines issued b,r, the Hon,ble Supreme Court in la.litha Kumari os. Gouernntent of U.p and. othersl issued a notice dated 12.11.2023 closing the complaint as lack of evidence. It is veheme ntly contended that the petitioner did no[ receive any intimation to furnrsh relevant evidence to prove the allegations levelled in the complaint, as alleged in the notice dated 12.11.2023.It is submitted that through the said notice only, the petitioner came to know about the respondent No.4 is seeking relevant evidence to prove the allegations and even without waiting for the petitioner to produce the relevant evidence, the respondent No.4 closed the complaint as lack of evidence, which js illegal and arbitrary and the said action on the part of respondent No.4 amounts to non-application of mind and ulttmately prayed to set aside the said notice dated 1 2. 1 L2O23.

¶42

As seen from the material placed on record, the notrce dated 12.11.2023 issued by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner, reads as follows:

¶43

"It is to inform you tha| gou haue sent a postal petition Dt: 07.06.2023 to Police Station Medipa g, stating tl-tat on 03.06.2023 in night hours, her husband (Azmeera .Jagttn) along tuith 5 otLrcrs Luere come in a car and broke the gate and banged main door and threatened utith dire conseLluences, hence requested for necessary action.

1(2013) 14 scR 713

I I

I I

On receipt of the complaint, the petition u.tas made a GD entry and coused enqulies tnto the matter, uisited the scene of offence to coLLect tLTe euidence but there is no euidence found in the incident place and also requested to furnish the releuant eutdence to proue the allegations, but gou haue foiled to produce the euidence.

¶49

Hence your pet[tion u-tas closed as lack of euidence.

¶50

This is for fouour of information."

¶51

It is the specilic contention of the petitioner that through the aforesaid notice only, she came to know about the respondent No.4 seeking relevant evidence to prove the allegations and even without waiting for her to produce the relevant evidence, the respondent No.4 has closed the complaint as lack of evidence. The respondents have not placed any material to disprove the contention raised by the petitioner.

¶52

In view of the above, this Court having found force in the contentions raised by the petitioner, deems it appropriate to set aside the notice dated 12.11.2023 issued by the respondent No.4 to enable the pctitioner to furnish relevant evidence to prove the allegations Ievellcd in hcr complaint. in the event, petitioner furnishes relevant evidence to prove the allegations levelled in her complaint, the respondent No.1 is directed to conduct fresh enquiry/ investigation, strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 1 54 Cr. P. C and also the guidelines

¶53

-l n:..j:i

¶54

¶55

issued by the Hor-r'ble supreme court in Latitha Ku,.,,ri us.

¶56

Goaernrnent of tl.p and. others (supra) within a perrod of four (4)

¶57

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this ordcr.

¶58

6 Accorclingll,, this Writ petition is disposed of

¶59

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, i[ any, pending

¶60

shali stand closed. No order as to costs

¶61

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIOT OFFICER

1 The Station House Officer, N/edipalli,^{Rachakonda Commissionerate,[,4edchal} - Malkajgiri District.

¶67

2 The Cdmmissioner, Rachakonda Commissronerate^{(Besidelvlalkajgiri Court} Complex) Neredmet, Hyderabad^- 500056. The Principal Secretary, Home Department,^{Telangana Secretariat,Stateof} Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶68

4 ONC EC tO SRI B.SUDHAKAR^{REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY, AdVOCAIE} loPUCl

¶69

5 Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court^{for the State of Telangana.} [OUT] 6 Two CD Copies. BSK

GJP

I I

i^HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 910312024

t, ,-.
<br>'t
',J

ORDER

WP.No.4382 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

9\A
"[

Ajmeera Poojitha v. The Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmeera Poojitha v. The Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Paradise Peak Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana