Dismissed

K. Venkat Ramaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Oct 2024WP/5895/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for offenses under Sections 430, 506, and 504 IPC. The court held that since a prior quash petition involving similar allegations was dismissed with a direction to continue the trial against the petitioner, filing a writ petition for the same relief was not maintainable given the

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition No. 5895 of 2024 and IA No. 1 CrF 2024 were dismissed without costs, noting that a prior quash petition involving the petitioner was dismissed necessitating a trial.

K. Venkat Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF^OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:^{5895 OF 2024}

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Venkat Ramaiah, S/o: K.^{VeeraSomaiah,Aged about 52 Years,} d"". i.otou"", R/o FIat No.^{402, Block - B, Sri Sri Kala Kuteers, Saraswathi} Nagar C6lony. Chintalakunta^{- 500 074, R R. District}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana,^{Home Department,Secretariat' Hyderabad- 500} 022, Represented by^{its Principal Secretary'}

¶13

2 The Commissioner of^{Police, Rachakoncla,Vayupuri Colony, Hyderabad-} 500 056.

¶14

3 The station House Officer,^{Vanasthalipuram Policestation,Vanasthalapuri,} Hyderabad^- 500^070.

¶15

4 Mansabdar Prasad^{Rao, S/o: Late M. KishanRao,Aged about 69 Years'.} o"":-. n.ta r-plov"",^{illo Flat No. c-102, sri sri K,laKuteers,saraswathi} Nagar Colony, Chiritalakunta^{- 500 074, R R. District.}

¶16

,..RESPONDENTS

¶17

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction^{particularly a writ of certiorariquashing} the c.c. No. 1284 of^{2020 on the file of the Hon'ble Juniorcivil Judge cum XXIV} Additional Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Cyberabadat Hayathngaragainst the} petitioner herein and accused No.2^{in the said C.C.}

¶18

IA NO: 1 CrF 2024

¶19

Pet tion under section 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High courtmaybe pleased to stay} all further^{proceedings in the c.c. No. 1284 ol 2020 on the file of the Hon'ble} Junior civil Judge cum XXIV^{Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,cyberabadat} Hayathng,ar including appearance^{of the petitioner herein and accused No. 2 in the} said C.C.^pending disposal^{of writ petition.}

¶20

lA NO: 2^tfF 2024

¶21

Between:

¶22

Mansabdar Prasad Rao, S/o:^{Late M. Kishan Rao'Aged about 69 Years,} Oi.,-. n"iO. emptoyee,^{R/o Flat No.C-102,Sri Sri K,laKuteers, Saraswathi} Nagar Colony, Chintalakunta^- 500 074,^{R.R. District.}

¶23

...PETITIONERJRESPONDENT

¶24

AND

¶25

K. Venkat Ramaiah, S/o: K.^{VeeraSomaiah,Agedabout 52 Years,} Or;c. Employee, R/o Flat No.402,^{Block- B, Sri Sri Kala KuteersSaraswathi} Nagar Colony, Chintalakunta^- 500 074,^{R.R. District}

¶26

Tlre State of Telangana,^{Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500} 022, Represented by^{its Principal Secretary.}

¶27

The Commissioner of Police,^{Rachakoncla,Vayupuri Colony, Hyderabad-} 500 056.

¶28

The Station House Officer, vanasthalipuram^{Police Station, Vanasthalapuri,} H'yderabad - 500^070.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS/WRI PETITIONER

¶30

Petition under section^{151CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the afficlavit filed in support^{of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} vacate the interim order^{dated 05.03.2024in WP.No.5895of 2004.}

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.^P. ACHARYA

¶32

Counse,l for the Respondent Nos.l^{to 3: GP FOR HOME}

¶33

Counserl for the Respondent No.4:^{SRI V. SRIKANTHARAO,}

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶36

WRIT PETI TION^{N0.5895 0F 2} 4

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This writ Petition is filed^{under Article 226 oI tlr.e} Constitution^{of India praying the Court to issuewrit' order or} Direction particularly^{aWrit ofCertiorariquashingthe} proceedings in^{C.C.No.1284 of 2O2Oon the file of 'JuniorCivii} Judge-cum-XXIV^{Additional Metropolitan Magistrate'Cyberabad} at Hayathnagar.^{The petitioneris accused No'2 in the saidC C'} The offences^{alleged against the petitioner are underSections} 430, 506 and^{5O4 r/w.34of I'P C'}

¶39

Heard Sri T.P.Acharya,^{learned counsel for the petitioner'} Sri C.M.^{Ravi Kumar,learned Assistant Government Pieader} appearing for^{respondents1 to 3 and Sri V'SrikanthaRao'} learned counsel^{for respondentNo'4'}

¶40

Petitioner is^{the General Secretaryof Sri Sri Kala Kuteers} Flat Owners^{Welfare Associationand one Avula Somaiah' lodged} a complaint^{with the District Registrarof Co-operative Society} against the^{petitioner seekingto dissolvethe Association and to}

¶41

¶42

freeze the bank account of the Association. That some of t.I.e members lodged a complaint with Bank of lndia, L.B.Nagar Br:rnch in which the Association,s Savings Bank Account is existing, basing on the compiaint the Bank freezed the account, due to which the Association is facing lot of difficulties to me.intain day-to-day needs of the apartment. As the account of tht: Association was freezed, it fiied W.p.No.g07O of 2020 before this Court questioning the dissolution letter dated 24.09.201S issued by the District Registrar of Assurances, Medchal Ma.lkajgiri. This Court granted interim order in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2O2O and the main writ petition is still pending. A circular was issued to all the tenants and flat owners bringing all the facts to their notice and cautioned them not to make any pal/ment towards maintenance to others. Some of the members ha.re not paid maintenance and fell due of arrears. The 4tr respondent fell due an amount of Rs.gOOO/_. Therefore, the Association had taken a decision to issue notice demanding to pal/ the arrears within seven days to all the defaulters and petitioner being Secretary of Association had signed the notice anri issued to all the defaulters. As the 4trr respondenr did not pal, arrears of maintenance, inspite of issuing notice, the water connection was disconnected. Therefore, he lodged complaint

¶43

¶44

with the 3'd respondent-station^{House Officer,Vanasthalipuram} Poiice Station on^14.06 '2O2o^{against the petitionerand 13} others. Out of 14^{accused, 7 accusedincludingthe petitioner} filed Crl.P.No.3229^{of 2021 seekingto quash the said C'C' This} Court allowed Crl.P.No.3229^{of 2O2l in part, quashingthe} proceedings against petitioners^{3 to 7 and dismissedthe same} in respect of^{petitioners 1 and 2.}

¶45

The allegation in^{the complaintis that water was cut to} the flat of 4fr^{respondentwithout any return notice is totally} false and the notice^{issued to him is fiied by the petitioner'As} such, the allegation is^{baseless. Thoughthe allegations are} similar for a1l the^{petitioners, the said criminal petitionis} allowed only in^{respectof petitioners3 to 7 and dismissedin} respect of^{petitioners 1 and 2.As petitioner is the General} Secretary of Association,^{done his duty and there is nothing} personal against anybody.^{No apartmentownerhas a right to} stay in the apartment^{without making payment of maintenance} charges and the 4e^{respondentfell due of Rs'8000/-towards} maintenance charges^{and as aGeneral Secretaryhe} implemented the^{decisionof the Associationconsisting of 150}

¶46

¶47

flatsr. As such, continuation of^{proceedingsis nothing but abuse} of lzLw and prayed to^quash the^proceedings.

¶48

On the other hand, the learned Assistant^Government Pleader wouid submit that as already a^{quash petitionwas} disrnissed against this petitioner, he cannot^{file a writ petition} see.ring the same reiief and^prayed the Court^{to dismissthe writ} petition.

¶49

Having regard to the submissions made by both^the counsel and the materiai on record, it is^{seen that petitioner} hinrself admitted ttrat earlier^quash Petition^{liled was dismissed} against him and another and aliowed^{in respectof petitioners3} to 7 therein. As the allegations made against him are s'imilar to the: allegations made against petitioners 3 to 7 in the^quash per:ition, proceedings cannot be continued against him. This writ pe:ition is Iiled seeking same relief as sought in the^quash pe tition and there is no relief claimed against official re:;pondents. When quash petition is dismissed on the^ground th.at trial is required for this petitioner, he cannot file^writ petition for the same relief. Further, the record shows that the main allegations are against this petitioner which requires trial. A:; such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is^{dismissed.No costs}

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶55

SD/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT^RFGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTIONbFFICER

¶56

To,
'l . One CC to Sri T P. Acharya Advocate tO?Ugl^.
i 6;; 6d i6 sr.iv s'irrntna Rao. Advoc-at-eloPucl
5. i;; d6ti"" cF roi Homi, riGii Court for the Staie or relangana' at
Hvderabad [OUT]
4. Two CD Copies
TJ
L5

l' I

HIGH COURT

(

DATED:01 11012024

ORDER

1\lE S TA]. l
Y
I 28i{[\I?o2l
.'+
D€sr,-arr'-'rj'-1

¶63

WP.No.5895 of 2024

¶64

DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

¶67

K. Venkat Ramaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Venkat Ramaiah 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

Sri.Dr. Manohar Kaul Vs The State of Telangana

Nooty Sindhu Sharma Vs Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu

Gade Praveen Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Nayeemulla and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Meesala Ramprasd Vs The State of Telangana

Leon Christopher Emanuel, Vs The State of Telangana