Dismissed

Mr.Athmakuri Veerabhadra Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Aug 2025WP/23805/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by police officers in Chhattisgarh. The Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass orders on the notice dated from a foreign state and directed the petitioner to seek remedies in the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Mr.Athmakuri Veerabhadra Rao Vs The State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵⁵ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE TWELFTHDAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVANKUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PE^{TITIONNO: 23805OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

lvlr.Athmakuri^{VeerabhadraRao'S/o Late. IV1r'ANaravana' Aqe 4T Years'} occ. Business^{oM T"ffi;;,'JiiJh"o-utA uo',1!-3J1071' Rampallv'Keesara} Mr";oIi"r,,iir-o"r,ar^{rt/"rrtiigiribistrict' Hvderabad Telangana'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The $;r""d;1 State^{ririrding.'-s""ieteribt'} of^{Telangana, Rep, Hvderabad' Telangana'By its Prl Secretary'Home Department'}

¶12

2 The Commissioner^{of Police, Rachakonda'} -Vayupuri^^{Colony' Beside} N[ikr;;;'i;;tto]"pr"*^{Hvoe#uao,relangana Pin'500056'}

¶13

J The iH.fiffi Asst ;#;'ri"-rt, Commissioner^{rvr"a"r,ur of Police, ili"-rrhigi'i Rachakondg, Dittr.ict'relangana' .New Malkaigiri-X 500047Road'}

¶14

4 The Station^{HouseOfficer, Keesara Police Station'Rachakonda'Medchal-} Malkajgiri^{District, Telangana}

¶15

1. The Station^{HouseOfficer,} Battapara^{Rural Police Station,District Bolda} - Biiar,BattaPara, Chattisgarh'

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under^{Article 226 ot the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith'the High Court may be} pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit'Orderoradirectionmoreparticularlyonein thenatureofWritofMandamusdeclaringtheactionoftheRespondentsmore particularly Respondent^{No' 4 and 5' in harassingthe Petitioner in a false and} fictitious^{in properand in-correct Notice Under Sec 35 (3) BNSS Dt 31-05-2025'} charged^{withSections 318 (4),3(5)BNS'registered at Baftapara'Rural Police} Station,^{ChhattisgarhState as illegal' Arbitrary' against Principles of Natural} Justice,^{Un_Constitutionaland as a consequence Set-Aside the Notice Under sec}

¶18

¶19

35 (3) BNSS^{Dt 3'1-05-2025,ChargedU/s 318 (4),3(5) BNS' registeredat} Battapara, Rural^{Police Station, ChattisgarhState, lndia'}

¶20

IA NO^.. 1 0F 2025

¶21

Petition under Section^{151 cPC praying thatin the circumstances statedin} theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto direct the Respondent^{No.4 and 5, to stay the operationof No 290 of} 2025,Uts.318^{(4),3(5)BNS, registeredat Battapara, Rural Police Station,} Chattisgarh and^{as a consequencenot to arrest the Petitioner'}

¶22

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI D.VIJAY}

¶23

Counsel forthe^{Respondents: ASST. GP FOR HOME}

¶24

The Court made^{the following:OROER}

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.23805 of20.25

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5, whose ofhcers are trying to arrest the petitioner by issuing false and fake notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (for short "BNSS"), 2023 (previous Cr.p.C. under Section 41-A) with FIR No.290 of 2025 under Section 318(a), 3(5) of BNS registered at Battapura Rural police Station, Chattisgarh State, I he present Writ petition is filed.

¶29

The facts of the case as stated in brief are that the petitioner is a business man doing trading business in Rice and other food items in the name and style of M/s.OM Traders, situated at H.No.1O-3/ lO/ l, Rampally, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, Telangana, having GST.No.36CCEPV2BOSEIZO. On 29.OS.2O2S, two persons saying that they are officers of respondent No.5 police Station situated at Bhattapqra, Chattisgarh State with the help of constables of respondent No.4 visited the petitioner,s office at H.No.1O-3/10/ 1, Rampally, Keesa Mandal, Medchal_Malkajgiri District and asked about the whereabouts of his workers. The respondent No.S has come to arrest the petitioner and take him

¶30

¶31

to Chattisgarh^{Police Station,as acriminalcase has been} registered^{againstthe petitioner'}

¶32

Questioning^{the same,the present Writ Petition is frled'}

¶33

Learned. counsel^{for the petitioner draws attention of this} Court to the^{form of notice issued.aS per Section 35(3) of BNS,} which has^{been issued by respondent No'5 on 31'05'2025'}

¶34

The Station^{House Officer of PS Keesara' Rachakonda} Commissionerate -^{respondentNo'4 placedinstructions through} the learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleader for Home submitting} that the^{FIR No.29O of 2025 does not pertain to KeesaraPolice} Station and^{pertainstoBattapara Rurai Police Station'} Chattisgarh^{State and it is no way concerned with the said FIR} and that they^{never called the petitioner and did not harass him'}

¶35

It is further^{submittedthat the petitioner is accused in} CrimeNo.TO4of2024underSections316(2)'318(4)ofBNS' datedl|.og.2o24onthelrleofrespondentNo.4policestation, whichwasregisteredbasedonthecomplaintgivenbyone Mr.Srikanth and^{dftercompletion ofinvestigation,the} respondent^{No.4 fiIed charge sheet dated 26'll'2024before the} learnedlllAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,Medchalat Malkajgiri and^{the same is pendingtrial uide C'C'No'1986 of} 2024.

¶36

¶37

)

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Home.

¶39

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home submits that resp6ndent No.4 is not concerned with the FIR No.290 of 2025 and that the respondent No.4 officers never vrsited the petitioner's office.

¶40

9 . In that view of the petitioner, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the notice issued by respondent No.5, which according to the petitioner,s counsel is not in a prescribed format and that the petitioner does not know the whereabouts of the place Battapara, Chattisgarh State, and recording the submissions of the respondent No.4 that the respondent No.4 officers are not concerned with the said notice dated 31.05.2025 and that they are not concerned with the petitioner and as stated by the petitioner's counsel that notice has been issued by respondent No.5, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to pass any order on the impugned notice dated 31.o5.2025. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedies challenging the said notice dated 31.05.2025 in accordance with law.

¶41

With the above observations, this Writ Fetition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶42

¶43

As a sequel,^{miscellaneous applications pending inthis}

¶44

petition if anY,^{shall stand closed}

¶45

SD/.MOHD.^ISMAIL DEP REGISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE^COPY//

¶47

N OFFICER

¶48

To, a Thp Pd Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat Buildings' Secreteriat' ' Hvdeiabad, State 6f Telangana' Telangana'

¶49

The Commissioner^{of Police'Rachakonda, J,yyqyl^ Colony, Beside} ' viuitri"s"iti'Colrt -Compte* Hvoerjoao' Telangana Pin 500056'

¶50

'Il;.4'"1ifr"#S:'J:il,%31"?$,1fu^{i5i"J,3i..?11?;)f J'"#iffi'.riXRoad'} 4. The Station^{House Officer, Keesara Police Station'Rachakonda'Medchal-} Malkaigiri^{District, Telangana'}

¶51

The Station^{HouseOfficer'Battapara Rural PoliceStation'District Bolda}

¶52

Biazat,BallaPara, Chattisgarh'

¶53

One^{CC to SRI D.VIJAY, Advocate lOPUCl}

¶54

T.TwoCCstoGPFORHOME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganalOUTl

¶55

Two^{CD CoPies}

BSK (L

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210812025

./' . iilr S
6
1;
26 [u6 2[6
I

¶61

ORDER

¶62

WP.No.23805 of²⁰²⁵

¶63

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS I

Mr.Athmakuri Veerabhadra Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Athmakuri Veerabhadra Rao 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

Pagidiala Narsimulu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Adam Ali, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Kaleem Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Moinuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Syed Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Panuganti Kranti Sangharsh Vs The State of Telangana