Disposed

V. Raju Nayak v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jul 2025WP/18659/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the 5th and 6th respondents to register an FIR and investigate a land dispute complaint. The Court observed that the 5th respondent had already registered a case. Thus, the writ petition was closed without costs as the grievance was redressed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed as the 5th respondent had already registered a case. No order as to costs.

V. Raju Nayak Vs State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 18659 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

V. Raju Nayak, S/o Late Balaiah Aged about. 39 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o Vishal Sanjaveni Villas, H.NO.1 1 2 , Tukuguda Municipality, f,4aheshwaram ltilandal.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Office at Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Rachaconda, T.S.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Maheshwaram, T.S.

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, lvlaheshwaram, T.S.

¶16

The Station House Officer, P.S.Maheshwaram T.S.

¶17

Onguri Chandraih, S/o.Onguri [,4utaiah Age about. 54 Years Occ. Agriculture R/o. 3-6214, Nandi Wanaparthy Village Yachara Mandal, R.R.District, T.S.

¶18

Narsimha, S/o.Not known Age ftrlajor Occ. Agriculture R/o. I/aheshwaram lVlandal, R. R. District, T.S.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of l\ilandamus deelaring the action of the Respondent No. 5 and 6, in not taking any action upon the complaint given by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner herein guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondent No. 5 and 6 more so Respondent No. 6, to register the

¶21

F.l-R., and invesligate the matter and take appropriate action, as per law

¶22

IANO:1O F 2025

¶23

Petition under Section^.151 CpC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High crurt may be preased to direct the respc,ndent no. 5 and 6 more so Respondent Nc 6 to register the F.l.R and investigate the matter and take appropriate actiorr as per law pending dtsposal of the rrV.P.

¶24

Counsel for the, petitioner: SRl. MIRZA MAHMOOD ALIBAIG Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5: AGp FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for thr: Respondent Nos.6&7:_

¶26

The Court madr: the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

^JF?

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶30

WRIT PETITION No. 18659 of 2025

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

¶33

Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home

¶34

According to the petitioner, he has lodged a^complaint

¶35

before 5'h respondent on^{19.06.2025alleging that 6'r' an<I} 7'l'respondents abusecl him in vulgar^{larrguage, threatenedhim} with dire consequenccs and crcated documents in^{his name in} respect of the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 out of^Acs.3.28 guntas rn Survey No.573lAA situated at Nandiwanaparlhy Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They^are clairning right over the said land on the strength of^{a registered} sale deed bearing document No.12477 of^{2022 dated} 14.02.2022. Despite receiving and acknowledging^{the said} complaint, 5th respondent did not act upon^{the same.} Therefbre, petitioner filed the^present Writ^Petition.

¶36

Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader of^Home,on instructions, would submit that 5'h^{respondenthas already}

¶37

2 .:iIr KI-, J ' ,{ls \t, P lio 1865(r oi2025 '':*

¶38

registerod a case in Crime No.25 g of 2025 agrrinst 6,h and 7,h respondlnts.

¶39

n.'/i

¶40

Therefore, recording thc said submissio,, since the grievance o1'the petitioner is redressed, this \,rrt petiti.n is

¶41

closed. l'hcre shall be no ordcr as to cosls.

¶42

Vliscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

edlrsraru?D/#":S+nT

//TRUE COPY'

t ECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to SRL MIRZA MAHIMOOD ALlBAlc, Advo;,re IOPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderaberd [OUT]

¶49

J Two CD t)opies BM GJP fr

HIGH COIJRT

DATED:2/0712025

ORDER

cl
a(
7
o
18SEI M
<br>* .t'r!'
Og pat

¶54

WP.No.18659 of 2025

¶55

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS

¶56

( 30^gL

V. Raju Nayak v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Raju Nayak v. 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

Dhulipalla v. a. S. Ravi Prasad Vs Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

Sri Chaitanya High School, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Zenith Prime Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. P.T.D. Lakshmi @a.T.D. Lakshmi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Ballem Jhansi Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Nalla Veeresh Goud Vs The State of Telangana