Disposed

Smt. Bolle Manjusri v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Aug 2025WP/23133/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by the wife of a deceased person seeking further investigation into a fatal accident case. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the investigating officer to consider the petitioner's representation and conduct investigation in accordance with the BNSS, 2023.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Investigating Officer to consider representation and conduct investigation in accordance with BNSS, 2023.

Smt. Bolle Manjusri Vs The State of Telangana — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ I

¶2

I i I : j t I ,i I ,l

¶3

\ fi

¶4

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

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Bolle Manjusri, W/o. Late B.^Rajashekar, AgeO^{abgyt 31 years,} housewife, Resident of H. No. 4-152-1, Yenavani^{Gudem, Venkatapurcm}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its^{Principal Secretary, HomeDepartment,} i

¶13

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Superihtehdent of Police, Kotlngudem,^{Bhadradri-Kothagudem_Distr'lct.} 3. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bhadrachalam,^Bhadradri- Kothagudem District.

¶15

The eircle inspector, Charla Police Station, Charla^{Mandal,Bhadradri-} Kothagudem District.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Charla^{Police Station, CharlaMandal,Bhadradri-} Kothapdem District'

¶17

...RE'''NDENTS

¶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 direction more particularly one in the nature^of writ of mandamus declaring action of^respondents in^{not action on petitloner} rep resentatio n/co m^pI aⁱ nt d ated^{OS-07 -2025 fo r furthe r investigation treating sa me} as material evidence under BNSS, 2023 and conduct^{investigation and alter} section of law in Crime No. 48 ot 2025 dated 2246-2025 on^{the file of Sth} respondent and also add accused and^also seize offendirg^{rrehble i.e.. TS 28 TA} 2359, as illegal and arbitrary and against to^provisions of^{BNSS, 2023 and} consequently direct respondents to consider^{petitioner cornplainUrepresentation} dated O5-O7-2O25 as additional evidence in Crime No. 48 of^{2O25 dated 22{,6-}

¶19

{-l zozS on the file of Sth respondent and conJrct further investigation and file Charge Sheet

¶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 respondents to consider^petitioner complaint/representation dated 05-072025 as additional evidence in Crime No. 48 of 2025 dated 22-06-2025 on the file of Sth respondent and conduct further investigation pending disposal of writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. R. R. KALYAN

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI LAKSHMIKANTH, AGP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

1I i I I I Iil iit, l, l;ll t I I I it I I I i I :

¶26

\ \

¶27

/-r t, (\

¶28

THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN 133

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lakshmikanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

¶31

On the complaint lodged by one Sri Bolla^Narasimha Rao, a case was registered vide Crime No. 48 of 2025 under^Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at the Charla^Police Station against unknown^persons. The^{petitioner's hu$and died in} the said accident. She has also submitted a representation^dated 05.07.2025 to respondent Nos.2 to 5^requesting a^proper investigation and action against the driver of the bus bearing registration No. TS28 TA 2359, belonging to T.G.S.R.T.C. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said^{representation,} respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have not^considered the same.^Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 5, the^presentwrit petition is filed.

¶32

\ \

¶33

Whereas, the learned Assistant Governrnent Pleader^f,or Home, on instructions, would submit that the lnvestigating Officer in the said crime has already^recorded the staternents of^six

¶34

¶35

-(-

¶36

witnesses. The Investigating Officer will also consider the representation dated 05.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner and investigate the same in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. The Investigating Officer shall obtain CCTV footage of the place of incident and consider the same while conducting investigation.

¶37

In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the tnvestigating Officer in Crime No.4g of 2025, pending on the file of Charla police Station, Bhadradri _ Kothagudem District, to consider the reprcsentation dated 05.07.2025 submitted by the petitioner and conducr the investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶39

closed.,

¶40

/,TRUE COPY'/ N OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The P s Home Department, Secreta riat, T.S.,Hyderabad. 2. The Su ent of lice, Kothagudem, Bhadrad ri-Kothagudem District. 3. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bhadrachala m, Bhadradri-

¶43

Charla Police Station, Charla Mandal, Bhadradri-

¶44

The House Officer, Charla Police Station, Charla Mandal, BhadradriKothaodem District.

¶45

One CC to SRl. R. R. KALYAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court^for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶47

Two CD Copies

¶48

PIM \oh/

/-'

(<sup>/

HIGH COURT

D:06/0812025

ORDER

WP.No.23133 of 2025

.,-.'^--.-.4
t t{ E S )4
Y
,i.
JJ
2E tou ilf

!6.r,-.--,._ -:.- ..

¶58

D ISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶59

rl
tp

Smt. Bolle Manjusri v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bolle Manjusri 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Manohar Vishnoi Vs The State of Telangana

Marupaka Anjaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Pathi Chandrasekhar Vs The State of Telangana

In the matter of M/s. Ranka Cables Limited(in liqn) Vs No Respondent

In the matter of M/s. Monarch Pipes Limited(in liqn) Vs No Respondent

M/s.Csk Realtors Limited Vs State of Telangana