Dismissed

P. Krishna Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Oct 2024WP/8204/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus declaration against the Station House Officer for failing to register an FIR. The respondent authority investigated the complaint and determined it was a civil dispute regarding a business agreement. The Court held that the matter is civil in nature and disposed of the petition by granting liberty to approach competent authorities for alte

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy against the closure report. No order as to costs.

P. Krishna Yadav Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

:i ' : i I

[3183J

fNTHEHrcHcouRTFoRTHFSrn.,-c^-__. - [3183J (. r"#.":,}fl:i.p,:,li:f I,:o NA A r H yD ERA BA D

¶5

MONDAY, THE *o in o [SXfi J.^iHffif,Y,??3il",. _

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 82040F 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

[:^ff:i::,Xs,xtya:8,i.fixl3&Tii*[tXt Ase 57 years, occ Business, R/o

¶11

AND .,.PETITIONER

¶12

1 3::,.$:1i:t"J,i;Eifl!3li,i,S,its,bv^{its principarsecretary,} Home Department,

¶13

I 3,jfifj"?r"ilr"J:l^{of Potice, retansana state DQp} office comptex, Lakdi_ka-

¶14

J A!:a?"rliff'oner^{of Police, Rachakonda porice} commissionerate, Ransa

¶15

4 Deputy Commissioner of coinm'issioneia[. i. [' r,rlLr?"43?,i*t;il:gil,,Zone, Racha ko nda porice

¶16

q Assistant Commissioner o commissionerate:[E ],i";:,:fiX?E; h3r.]?fl3i,j1.", Rachakonda porice

¶17

6 m:flfltl3il,J"use^{officer,Saroornagar PoliceStation, Rachakonda,} Ransa

¶18

7 Mekala Sitaram Reddv. S n:":ffi ,xll"r""ff^{3"i3,:11""i*,,:;xllA",.",lsf"?-ff} ffi^,.-:,.;

¶19

8 Rfl'?ffi,3?tl,leftfJSlfi; B1:,,ii,'unuo''h'^{Ase 46} vears,^{occ Business,}

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ, order, or direction more particurarry, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the inaction of the Respondent authorities more lafth[\aq^{ReSpOnden\No. 0 \n not reqrster\nq the F\rsr \n{ormarron Reporr(F \R),}

¶22

despite^{the Complaint containing cognizable offences averred againstthe} Respondent^{No 7 and} '^{;:;;;t""'"""-o"ntcomplaintdl. 15'032024'bearrns} acknowledgement^{no' "O'***"HKD/l60324/00572dt16'032024' as} being^{illegal' arbitrary' Ois-criminative and Violativeof Articles 14 and 21 of the} it'ng^{contrary'tothe provisions of the Criminal} Constitution Procedure^{Code and of lndia} 'o'*l'"'^{tn" n''o"U**iJsuea uy the Hon'bleapex court in the case} Uttar^{Pradesh ((2023)SCC online SC 1833)'} of Lalitha^{Kumar v st't"} "t consequently^{direct the Respondent No 6 to consider the complaint dt'} 15.03.2024 '^{pendingon the file of the Station House Officer. Saroornagar'} Rachakonda'^{Ranga ReddY District'}

¶23

IAN^O:1OF2024

¶24

he circumstances^{stated in} Petition^{under Section151 CPC prayingthat in t} Court^{may be Pleasedto} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High} comPlarnt^{dt 15 03 2024 6} direct the^{Respondent authoritiesto considerthe} pending^{disposalof the Writ Petition'}

¶25

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI N'NAVEEN KUMAR} Counsel^{for RespondentsNo'1to6:SRI G'ANIKETH REDDY'AGPFORHOME} Counsel^{for ResPondents No'7&8:}

¶26

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶27

I : : i

¶28

I I I i I I I I I I I ! i

¶29

i ? t I I

¶30

HONOURABLE^SRI IUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶31

WRIT^{PETITIONNo.8204082024}

¶32

ORDER:^(ORAL)

¶33

This writ^{petition is filed by the petitionerseekingto declare the} action of^{respondent No'6 - the Station House Officer' Saroornagar Police} Station, in^{not registering crime against respondents No'7 and 8} pursuant^{to his complaint dated 15 '03 '2024' as being illegal' arbitraryand} unconstitutional.

¶34

Heard Mr.^{N' NaveenKumar'learned counselfor the petitioner'} and Mr.^{G. Aniketh Reddy' leamedAssistantGovemmentPleader for} I'lome,^{and perused the materialon record'}

¶35

It is the^{case of the petitioner that the contentsof the complaint} disclose^{cognizable offence, as such' respondentNo'6 ought to have} registered^{crimeagainstrespondents No'7 and 8' Respondent No 6 does} not have^{any discretion in the matter when cognizable offence is made} out. The^{action of respondent No'6 in not registering crime is contraryto} the law^{laid down by the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in LalithaKumari}

¶36

v. Government^{of U'P1'}

¶37

'^{AIR2012 sc 1515}

¶38

¶39

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner has effective and alternative remedl, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) The complaint of the prc-titioner was enquired into bv respondent No.6. During the course of enquiry, it was found that Mr. Mekala Sitaram Reddy, as Managing Director of M/s Sri Venkatadri Enterprises, has entered into an allreement with Mr. Md. Naseer for demolition of 'Venkatadri 70MM' situated at H. No.13-7-1, Madhurapuri, Gowtham Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad. The said agreement was accepted by ten (10) partners of the firm. The issue is with regard to agreement made by respondent No.7 for which all other partners accepted excepting the petitioner and his wife. The issue is civil in nature and the complaint of the petitioner was closed and to that effect, notice was issued to him on 28.03.2024 intimating the closure of his complaint.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the closure of the complaint, the petitioner may be given libertv to avail appropriate lemedl as availablc under law

¶41

¶42

In the ctcumstances, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy, if^{he is aggrievedby}

¶43

the closure report. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if^{any, pending in}

¶45

the writ petition stand closed.

¶46

SO'.^{K. AMMAJI} ASslsrANr RE9ISTRAK ,,TRUE^COPY" SECTIJN^OFFICER

¶47

to',r Ttre Principal^{Secretary' Home Department' Secretariat Buildings'Stateof} Porice'^{reransana stateDQP office comprexLakdi-}

¶48

, ::lX::'"**:' of Porice'^{Rachakonda Potce commissionerate'Ransa}

¶49

I lu:*il:::' Reddy^Distrlct . 6^,i^^ r R Nadar Zone,^{Rachakonda Police}

¶50

^u;r,:sl,y.::jlyi:.d:L'Jr*:fi^{5i"'-?.iin3[u'o}

¶51

,U"#.::S,f"T:,"J[SX?ffi lf,*ko'"f^{r]3?.11'3f""RachakondaPorice}

¶52

The^{Station.HouseOfficer' Saroornagar Police Station' Rachakonda'Ranga}

¶53

ReddY^Distrlcl'

¶54

7.^{One CCto SRI N NAVEEN KUMAR'Advocate iOPUCl}

¶55

B. Two^{ccs to Gp ron Hor,rrE High court for the state of Telangana'[oUT]}

9.^{TwoCD CoPtes.}

BSK s

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411012024

ORDER

EoF 16
p.1
6
c l>t
o s ,}
r{
\\ ]
F&2 1$
t
grH +o

¶62

WP.No.8204 of 2024

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @43 d..,ffi

P. Krishna Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Krishna Yadav 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Vodnala Yagnesh Vs The State of Telangana

Yesala Kameshwar Rao @ Vollaknati Raja, @ Mahesh @ Vijay Vs The State of Telangana

Dasari Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kevin Sukirthy Vs The Telangana State Bar Council

Murarikar Sonu Vs The State of Telangana

Ravi Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Telangana