Disposed¶82

Mandava Upender v. The State of Telagana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2025WP/14890/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy; further investigation; Section 173(8) CrPC; Section 193 BNSS; Vilubhai Haribhai Malaviya v State of Gujarat AIR 2019 SC 5233; Cr.No.63/2024 Suryapet; C.C. No.849/2024 JMFC Huzurnagar; representation dated 28.11.2024; biased investigation; writ petition disposed with liberty to approach Magistrate; Telangana High Court; Justice T. Vinod Kumar; 10.06.2025; WP No.14890 of 2025; alleged illegal collection of Rs.13,00,000; third degree; theft case foisted; no notice to unofficial respondents.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the remedies under Cr.P.C./BNSS by approaching the concerned Magistrate before whom C.C. No.849 of 2024 is pending; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs and miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ¶82

Mandava Upender Vs The State of Telagana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's grievance that the police authorities did not conduct proper investigation into Cr.No.63/2024 and that the investigation was biased can be redressed in this writ petition, or whether he must avail the remedies provided under Cr.P.C./BNSS before the Magistrate. +1 more

¶75

Court's answer

The petitioner, aggrieved that the respondents-authorities did not properly investigate Cr.No.63/2024 and wrongly arrayed him as accused, ought to have availed the remedies provided under Cr.P.C./BNSS by filing a petition before the Magistrate instead of approaching respondent No.3 seeking further investigation, since by then the charge sheet had been accepted by the concerned Magistrate and the subject matter was already seized of by him.

¶76

Ratio / Principle

By the present Writ Petition the petitioner cannot seek a direction to respondent No.3 or respondent No.4 to conduct further enquiry in a matter already sub-judice before the concerned Magistrate; he ought to have approached the Magistrate before whom C.C. No.849 of 2024 is pending.

¶81

Key takeaways

Having regard to the manner of disposal and the nature of lis, notice to the unofficial respondent Nos. 9 to 21 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (High Court for the State of Telangana, T. Vinod Kumar J, 10.06.2025) - The petitioner, arraigned as accused in Cr.No.63/2024 (initially registered against an unknown person) pursuant to a charge sheet taken on file as C.C. No.849 of 2024 (JMFC, Huzurnagar), sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider his representation dated 28.11.2024 for further investigation (through CBI/CB-CID or other agency) and action against police officials (respondent Nos.10-12) for allegedly foisting a theft case, harassing him, using third degree and collecting Rs.13,00,000/-. Held, disposing of the petition: relying on Vilubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 SC 5233, a person aggrieved by the course of police investigation must avail the remedies under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. / Section 193 BNSS; since the charge sheet had already been accepted by the Magistrate and the matter was sub-judice, the petitioner ought to have approached the Magistrate rather than seek a writ direction to respondent Nos.3/4 for further enquiry. Writ petition disposed of with liberty; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed. Notice to unofficial respondents 9-21 held unnecessary.

i I

-i I o E t ;

E t

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

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE

¶6

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 14890 OF m25

r i

BETWEEN:

Mandava Upender S/o Narsalah, age 35 years, caste: Goud, Occ: agriculture, Vo^Burugadda village, Huzumagai Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶15

Petitioner

¶16

AND 1.. The State of Telagana, rep.by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Director General of police, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad, office at Telangana state police Hed euatrei.

¶18

The Inspector General of police, Multi Zone_II, Hyderabad, office at Telangana state^police Hed euatres.

¶19

iI I i I

¶20

¶21

4.The Superintendent of police Suryapet District, ( At Suryapet.

¶22

The Deputy Superintendent of police Kodad, At kodad, Suryapet District.

¶23

The Station House Officer, Huzurnagar, At Huzurnagar, Suryapet District.

¶24

The Station House Officer, palakaveedu police Station At Palakaveedu, Suryapet District.

¶25

The Asst Sub Inspector of police Finger print Unit,\ CID, Suryapet At Suryapet District.

¶26

i II l i

¶27

I I I I I I

¶28

G.Charamanda^{Raju, S/o' Not know to the} petitioner, f,g; ,-"io.,^{Occ:Circle Inspectorof Poll:e' Huzurnagar'} AiHuzurnagar,^{SurYaPet District'}

¶29

G.Muthaiah,^{S/o. Not know to the petitioner'} Age ,majo.,^{Occ:Sub Inspectorof Police' Huzurnagar'} ni Huzurnagar,^{SurYaPet District'}

¶30

Balram reddy,^{S/o. Not know to the petitioner'} e!.',major,^{OcC: Asst Sub Inspectorof Police'} nlrurnugar,At^{Huzurnagar, SuryapetDistrict'}

¶31

Golli Shambaiah,^{S/o' Not know to the petitioner'} Age :major,^{Occ:Police constable,} -Hi^tnug'u.'Police station, At Huzurnagar' Suryapet District'

¶32

Vattikuti^{Mamatha, W/o Rambabu'} Age: about^{29 Years,} OZr:: House^{Wife, R/o Burugaddavillage'} Hu.zumagar^{Mandal,SuryapetDistrict'}

¶33

14 Vattikuti^{Rambabu,S/o Nagaiah,} Age: about^{38 Years,Occ: RIYP Doctor} R/o Burugadda^village, Huzumagir^{Mandal,Suryapet District'}

¶34

15, Yaragani^{Narsimha Rao, S/o' Bangetuy'} Age: about³⁵ Years, R/o Burugadda^village, Hr-rzumagir^{Mandal,SuryapetDistrict'}

¶35

Yaragani^{Usha, W/o' Yaragani NarsrmhaRao '} nge: aOoit^{35 years, R/o Burugaddav llage'} H-uzumagar^{Mandal,Suryapet District'}

¶36

17.Kasani^{GoPal, S/o. Guravaiah,} Age: about^{35 years, R/o Burugaddavrllage'} H:.rzumagar Mandal,suryapet^District'

¶37

.,t

¶38

18.Vattikuti Vijay, S/o. Srinu, Age:27 years, Vo Thallamalkapuram village, Garidepally Mandal,Suryapet District.

¶39

Vattikuti Radha, W,/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: about 35 years, R/o Thallamalkapuram village, Garidepally Mandal,Suryapet District.

¶40

¶41

¶42

Vattikuti Yashwanth, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: about 22 years, R/o Thallamalkapuram village, Garidepally Mandal,Suryapet District.

¶43

21, Battini Srinu, S/o Malaiha,

¶44

Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mangapuram Thanda Village, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet DiStrict.

¶45

Respondents.

¶46

Petition under Article^{226 o1 lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavilfiled therewith, the High courtmaybe} pleaSed to issue a Writ or order or direction,^{more particularlyonein the nature Of} Writ of Mandamus,^{questioningthe in actionof the RespondentsNo' 3 Not} consider the^{petitionerRepresentationDaled 28.11.2024regarding to further} investigation in connection to^{c.c. No.849of 2024 on the file of the HOn'ble} Judicial First class Magistrate^{at Huzurnagarthrough cBl or cB-clDor other} lnvestigation Agency and^{further directedthe Respondent No. 2 to 4 to ensure} thorough investigation^{into the unlaMulconductof the Respondents No.,|0 to 12} are involved in the^{illegal registered the FIR againstthe petitioner and to take} appropriate disciplinary^{action againstthem for illegally foisteda theft case} against the^petitioner and^{harassedhim put into lockup by used the third degree} and illegally collected^{an amountof Rs.13,00,000/- lakhs from the petitioner,with} active collusion unofficial^{respondent No.9 to 2'1 same is illegal, perverseand} unconstitutional and^{consequentlydirect the respondentNo. 2lo considerthe} representation field by^{the petitioner on 28.1 1 .2024 in the interest of justice.}

¶47

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶48

Petition under section 151^{cPcprayingthat in the rircumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the Highcourt maybe pleased to} direct the respondent^{No. 2 to-consider the representatio1 field by the petitioner} on.28.11.2024,^pending disposal^{of the above WritPetition}

¶49

A NO: 2 OF 2025

¶50

Petition under Section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the Highcc urt maybe pleasedto} direct the 8th respondent^{to produce the entire recordsin the compared finger} prints of the suspicious persons in connection^{to cc No.819 of 2024 on the file of} the Hon'ble Judicial First Class^{Magistrateat Huzurnagar,pendrngdisposaloI the} above Writ Petition.

¶51

Counsel for lhe Petitioner:^{SRI S. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY}

¶52

Counsel for the Respondents^{No.l to 8: GP FOR HOME}

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.9 to 21:} -

¶54

The Court made the following: ORDER

II II E t !I I I I i

; ; i i I

l i

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VTNOD XUMAR

¶59

\II.P.No.1489O of 2025

¶60

ORDER

¶61

Heard l,earned counsel for the petitioner, learned Governrnent Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I to 8, and with their consent the Writ Petition is Laken up for hearing ald disposal at admission stage.

¶62

Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petiLion and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the t,iew that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.g to 2i is not nccessary lor adjudication of the present Writ Petition

¶63

It is the case of the pclitioner, in brief, that respondentsauthorities basing on a false complaint made by the unollicial respondents herein have registerecl a case uide Cr.No.63 /2O24, dt.26.O2-2O24, initiatly against ern unknovr.n person and thereafter claiming to have conducted in\tstiilation therein have falsely implicated the petitioner herein in rhc aforesaid crime.

¶64

4- Petitioner further contcnds that the rcspondcnts -authorities without conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime properly have laid a charge sheet bcforc rhc <:oncerned Court ergarinst the petitioner, which has been taken on rccord by assigning CC.No.849 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at HuzurnagaJ.

¶65

¶66

: I I I I I I I I t ! i I

¶67

It is further contended that the on resporrdents authorilies seeking to obtain [ingcr print of the petitioner in corncctittn u'ith rhc aforesaid CC, the petitioner had submitted a repolt, dL.2la.ll.2o24, seeking fi-rrther investigation into the aJoresaid CC, zLnd in spite oi the same, tht: said report has not been considered by the 3.d respondent.

¶68

Per contra, learned Government Pleader apperrring on behall of the respondents would submit that the responderLts-authori lies on regrstering a case uide Cr.No.63 of 2024, during the nvestrgali()11 have lound invoh,t:ment oI the pctitioner in the afor:said crimc zind acc'ordir-r6dv by collecting necessary evidence have filecl thc charge sheet befrrre the concerned Court.

¶69

7 lrarned Government Pleader furt]rer su bmits thal the representation submitted by the petitioner to the 3',i rcspondcnr, thc s:Lrne \'a:i forr.r'arded lo the 4tr respondent and the said auth.ori:r trad condrrcte:l lurther enquiry into the matter and rlid nor [inC :rnr' correctness in rhe clarm of the petitioner.

¶70

k--:rrncd Government Pleader would furttrer submit th:rt il thc petiLloner rs aggrieved by the manner or course of investigertion or the corrrse o[ investigation, or having omitted any rele\ ant materi.rl, the petrtioner can approach the concerned Magistratr by nvariling the rcm<rrlies provided under BNSS and the petitioncr irstc:rrl oI a,'ailing such rcmcdies has hled the present Writ Petition.

t t I t i i

I I

g. I have taken note of the respective submissions^made.

¶75

Insofar as the claim of the petitioner as to the^police authorities not conducting investigation into the crime registered or the said inve stigation being biased, the Flon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vilubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs The State Of Gujarat^6o Anr.r had held that if any person has any^{grievance in relation to the} course of investigation by the^police authorities, they^{have to avail} remedies provided under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C./ 193 of^BNSS.

¶76

11- Since, in the facts of the^present case,^{the petitioner claimsof} the respondents-authorities havrng not^{conducLcdproper} investigation and having wrongly arraved him as an^accusedin Cr.No.63/2O24, which was initialiy registerLtl against^{an unknou'n} person, it is not shown to this Court o[ thc pctitioner availing the remcdy provided under BNSS. On the other hand, thc^{pctitionerhad} approached the 3.d respondent and sr.tbmitted^{rcpresentation,} d1.2a.1I.2024, by which time, the respondents-authoritics have already conducted investigation and laid :r charge sheet bcfore thc concerned Court and the said charge shcct having been acccpted^by thc ccncerned Magistrate by assigning OO^Nri 8'19/2O24, this^{Court is} of the view that the petitioner ought^t<.r have availed^{the rcmedies} provided under Cr.P.C./BNSS by Illing petition before the Magistrale

¶77

AIR 2019 SUPREME COUflT 5233

¶78

¶79

i I I I \

¶80

instead of approaching the 3.d respondent seeking furthcr investigalion into the matter, as by then, the sucject rnatter was aJready sr:ized of by the concerned Magistrate.

¶81

In^.,.ierv of the above, this Court is of the view that thr: petitioner by the prescnt Writ Petition cannot seek for a ditection to the 3.d respondeltt or the 4rh respondent to whom the aforesaid representirtion rs fonvarclcd for conducting furthe:. enquiry in the matter which is already sub-judice before the concr,rned Magistratc, and instead ought- to have approached the conct:rned Magistrate before r.r,h:nr C.C. No.849 of 2024 is pending.

¶82