Dismissed¶45

Bhukya Sai Durga Uday Kiran v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Sept 2025WP/11424/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; W.P. No. 11424 of 2017; N. Tukaramji, J.; writ of mandamus; police inaction in investigation; Crime No. 111 of 2015; Kothagudem; Sections 389, 420, 468 r/w 511 IPC; Section 3(1)(ix) SC/ST (POA) Act; Article 226; Article 21; charge sheet filed; S.C.No.117 of 2022; Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam; trial pending; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

None — writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. ¶45

Bhukya Sai Durga Uday Kiran Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Crime No. 111 of 2015 (registered for offences under Sections 389, 420, 468 r/w 511 IPC and Section 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (POA) Act) is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether respondent No. 3 should be directed to complete the investigation and apprehend respondent No. 5.

¶20

Court's answer

The developments reported by the respondent-police authorities demonstrate that Crime No. 111 of 2015 was investigated and the charge sheet filed; accordingly, the petitioner's contention that the investigation was not properly conducted has been effectively addressed and nothing further survives in the petition.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 11424 of 2017 (High Court for the State of Telangana; N. Tukaramji, J.). The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Crime No. 111 of 2015 — registered for offences under Sections 389, 420, 468 r/w 511 IPC and Section 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (POA) Act — illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21, and a direction to complete the investigation and apprehend respondent No. 5. None appeared for the petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that after due investigation the charge sheet was filed and the matter was numbered S.C.No.117 of 2022 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, and is pending trial. Holding that the developments reported by the police demonstrated that the crime was investigated and the charge sheet filed, and that the petitioner's contention had been effectively addressed with nothing further surviving, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

rN rHE H|GH couTf8$rtJ5^BlfE^{oF TELANGANA}

¶3

(SPeciii orig:nal^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THESEVENTEENTHDAYoFSEPTEMBER

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEN. TUKARAMJI}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 11424OF 2017}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bhukya Sai Durga Udav Kiran,^{S/o Mohan,Age{about} -23^years,Occ: Business, R/o H. No ; 0:d- idg;^{triehru Basthi, Nehru Basthi, Kothagudem.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana,^{Represented by its Secretary (HomeDepartment),} Secretariat Build ing,^HYderabacl

¶13

The Superintendent of^{Police, Kothagudem',}

¶14

¶15

The Sub-Divisional^{Officer, Kothagudem',}

¶16

¶17

The station House Officer, station House Officer, House Officer,^{Kothagudem1 Town Police station, Kothagudam,Town Police station, Kothagudam,}

¶18

4 The station House Officer, station House Officer, House Officer,^{Kothagudem1 Town Police station, Kothagudam,Town Police station, Kothagudam,} 5 Bheema sridhar, s/o.^{PrasadaRao, Aged about 40 years, occ: Political} Leader, Rl/o. H. No. 5-1-11,^{Coolie Lane, Kothaguoem'}

¶19

,..RESPONDENTS

¶20

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue the writ or order/s^{more particular one in th_e.natureof writ} Mandamus, declaring the inaction^{of RespondentNos' 2 & 3 in'Crime No' 111 of} 2015 registered for the offences^{u/sections 389, 420, 468 r/w 511 IPC and} Sections 3 (1) (lX) of^{SC/ST (POA) Act, as being illegal' arbitrary'} unconstitutionar and violative^{of Articre 21 of the constitutionof lndiaand} consequently direct the respondent^{Nos. 3 to completethe investigationand} apprehend the respondent^{no. 5 in Crime No' 111 of 2015'}

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP,^{NO: 14210 OF 20171}

¶22

petition under Section 1sl cPc praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} forthwith direct the respondent^{No. 3 to completethe investigationand}

¶23

apprehend the respondent no. 5 in Crime No. 111 of 2:015^pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. VENKATA MAYUR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI R. LAffilry.flI1{_IIEDDY, ASST. GP FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No,S:^{- - - -}

¶27

The Gourt made the fotlowing: ORDER

¶28

\ \

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI .'USTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

¶31

lndia seeking the following relief:

¶32

"...fo issare the Writ^{q qderls} more particular one in the nature of Writ Mandamus, dectaring the inaction of Respondenf Nos. 2 & 3 in Crime No. 111 of 2015 registered fq the offences u/sections 389, 420,.468 rhv ill lrc and Secfions 3 (1) (n of SC/SI eOil Act, as being lllegal, arbiffy, unoonitutional and violative of Article 21 of the @nditution of tndia and consequently direct the respondenf Nos- 3 to complete the invesigation and apprehend the respondent no. 5 in Arime No. 111 of 2015 and M pleased fo pass....."

¶33

None appeaied for the petitioner.

¶34

Heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government

¶35

Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that after

¶37

due investigation in Crime No.11 1 of 2015, charge sheet was filed and the matter was numbered as S.C.No.117 of 2O22 on the file of

¶38

Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam and the matter is^pending for

¶39

trial

¶40

I have perused the materials on record.

¶41

The contest of the^petitioner is that the lnvestigating,Officer is

¶42

not conducting proper investigation in the Crime. The developments

¶43

¶44

reported by the respondent-Police Authorities are demonstrating that the Crime was investigated and charge sheet was filed. ln the circumstan(Es, as the contention raised by the petitioner has been effectively addressed, nothing further survives in the petition for

¶45