Disposed¶41

Entivenka Dasharatha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Apr 2025WP/12991/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-registration of FIR; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14 and 21; complaint dt. 22.01.2024; endorsement by ACP Chevella Division; Shahabad Police Station; Cyberabad Commissionerate; Ranga Reddy District; remedies under BNSS; reliance on this Court's order dt. 10.03.2025 in W.P.No.7159 of 2025 & batch; writ petition disposed of with liberty and no costs; miscellaneous petition under Section 151 CPC closed; Telangana High Court; Justice T. Vinod Kumar; petitioner Entivenka Dasharatha; unofficial respondents E. Sai Kumar, E. Shiva Kumar, E. Yadamma; counsel M/s. OM LAWFIRM; GP FOR HOME.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the remedies provided under BNSS; the writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions (if any) stood closed. ¶41

Entivenka Dasharatha Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the remedies provided under BNSS; the writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions (if any) stood closed.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, aggrieved by the authorities' failure to take further action on his complaint dated 22.01.2024 against respondents 4-6 (alleged by him to amount to non-registration of FIR), is entitled to relief through this writ petition, or should instead be directed to avail the remedies provided under BNSS.

¶32

Court's answer

Vide its order dt. 10.03.2025 in W.P.No.7159 of 2025 & batch, this Court had already held that for non-registration of FIR the parties are required to avail the remedies provided under BNSS; accordingly the petitioner should likewise be directed to those remedies.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Although the relief sought in the writ petition is intelligently worded, its effect is only the petitioner approaching this Court for non-registration of FIR; hence such relief is not to be granted through this writ petition.

¶32

Key takeaways

The petitioner is to be directed (with liberty) to avail the remedies provided under BNSS for redressal of his grievance of non-registration of FIR.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), W.P. No. 12991 of 2025, decided 28.04.2025 by Justice T. Vinod Kumar: Entivenka Dasharatha, invoking Article 226, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chevella Division, and the Station House Officer, Shahabad Police Station, to take further action on his complaint dated 22.01.2024 against respondents 4-6 (E. Sai Kumar, E. Shiva Kumar and E. Yadamma), including pursuant to the endorsement made by the second respondent directing the third respondent to verify the facts and take action, and declaring the official respondents' inaction on his police complaints arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21. Holding that, though the relief sought was intelligently worded, its effect was merely the petitioner approaching the Court for non-registration of FIR, and that vide its order dt. 10.03.2025 in W.P. No. 7159 of 2025 & batch the Court had already held that for non-registration of FIR the parties are required to avail the remedies provided under BNSS, the Court directed the petitioner to avail the remedies under BNSS and disposed of the writ petition granting liberty, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any (including IA No. 1 of 2025 filed under Section 151 CPC), were closed.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12991 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Entivenka Dasharatha, S/o.E. Balaiah Aged about 52 years Occ- Agriculture Rl/o. Kommaraband Village, Shahabad Mandal, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chevella Division, Cyberabad Commissionerate Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶13

The Station House Officer, Shahabad Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶14

E.Sai Kumar, S/o.Late E.Yadaiah Aged about around 27 years OccAgriculture Rl/o. Kommaraband Village, Shahabad Mandal, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶15

E.Shiva Kumar, S/o.Late E.Yadaiah Aged about around 30 years OccAgriculture R/o. Kommaraband Village, Shahabad Mandal, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶16

E.Yadamma, W/o.Late E.Yadaiah Aged about around 50 years OccAgriculture Rl/o. Kommaraband Village, Shahabad Mandal, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶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 a direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to take further action on complaint dated 22.0'l .2024 submitted by the petitioner against the 4th , sth AND 6th respondent, and also direct the 3rd respondent to take action based upon the

¶19

endorsed made by the 2nd^{respondent directing the 3rd respondent to verify the} facts and take action and also^{declaringthe highhanded action of the official} respondents in not taking any action^{on the police complaint and representations} submitted by the petitioner as arbitrary,^{unjust and violativeof Article14,21 of the} Constitution of lndia.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 2nd and 3' respondent^{to take further action on complaintdated} 22.01 .2024 submitted by the^{petitioner againstthe 4th . sth & 6th respondent and} also direct the 3rd respondent^{to take action basedupon the endorsed made by} the 2nd respondent directing^{the 3rd respondentto verifythe facts and take} action, pending disposal of the^{writ petitionin the interestof equityof justice.}

¶22

Gounsel for the Petitioner : M/s.^{OM LAWFIRM}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3^{: GP FOR HOME}

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondents No.4to6:^--

¶25

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶26

t I

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICET. VINOD KUMAR}

¶28

W.P.No. L299l of^2o25

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The grievance of the^{petitioner in the preseltWrit Petition is} that the^{respondents-authorities are not taking further action on} the complaint^{lodgcd by the petitioner, dt'22'O1'2O24, wh,icl:. in a} way amounts^{to non-registrationof FIR against the unofficial} respondents herein,^{which action ofthe respondents itis} contended as highly^{illegaland arbitrary,with a consequential} direction to^{respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take further action in thc} matter.

¶31

Heard learned Counsel^{for thepetitioner,learned} Government Pleader^{for Home appearingfor officialrespondents,} and with the consent^{of the counsel appearingfor the parties the} writ Petition is taken up^{for hearing and disposalat admission} stage.

¶32

Though the. relief^{sought for in the} Present^{Writ Petition is} intelligently worded,^{the effect of the said relief would only be the} petitioner approaching this^{Court for non-registration of PIR'}

¶33

Since, this Coart uide^{orderdt. 1O.03.2025 in W.P.No'7159 of} 2025 &, batch, had already^{held that for non-registrationof FIR,} the parties are required to^{avail the remediesprovidedunder}

BNSS, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be

¶38

¶39

directed to avail the remedies provided under BNSS.

¶40