Dismissed¶¶37

Medida Malyadri v. The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC14 Aug 2025WP/24554/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus for registration of complaint and investigation; police inaction by Cyberabad/L.B. Nagar/Vanasthalipuram authorities; Article 226 writ jurisdiction not exercised in academic or infructuous matters; Article 14; interim direction under Section 151 CPC; Crime No. 603 of 2016; charge sheet; C.C. No. 1134 of 2016; acquittal of accused by judgment dt. 03.11.2018; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; Telangana High Court, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the submissions of both parties and the judicial outcome in the underlying criminal proceedings (acquittal of the accused), the Court held that no further adjudication was warranted and that the writ petition stood disposed of as having become infructuous. ¶¶36

Medida Malyadri Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondents 2 to 4 in not registering the petitioner's complaint dt. 02.05.2016 and not investigating the same was illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to Article 14, warranting a writ of mandamus to register the complaint, investigate into the matter and punish Respondent No.5. +1 more

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

¶¶36

Key takeaways

It is a settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised in academic or infructuous matters.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, WP.No.24554 of 2016, decided 14-08-2025 by N. Tukaramji, J. The petitioner, a social worker, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 declaring the action of Respondents 2 to 4 (Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad; Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar; SHO, Vanasthalipuram P.S.) in not registering his complaint dt. 02.05.2016 and not investigating it as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to Article 14, praying that Respondents 2 to 4 register the complaint, investigate and punish Respondent 5 (P. Praveen Kumar); an interim application (I.A. No.1/2016, WPMP No.30329/2016) under Section 151 CPC sought registration pending disposal. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that investigation in Crime No. 603 of 2016 produced a charge sheet taken on file as C.C. No. 1134 of 2016, and that the trial culminated in the acquittal of the accused by judgment dated 03.11.2018; petitioner's counsel admitted this position. Holding that the grievance had become infructuous, and invoking the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be exercised in academic or infructuous matters, the Court found no further adjudication warranted, dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, made no order as to costs and closed miscellaneous petitions, if any.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24554 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ivledida Malyadri, S/o, Malakondaiah, Aged 46 years, Occ. Social Worker, R/o. TRT-1 9, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad-44.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad-

¶13

J The Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

P. Praveen Kumar, S/o. Koteshwara Rao, Aged about 23^years, Occ. Worker, SIRIA Orphan Home, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 writ order or direction more pa(icularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 to 4 Respondents in not registering the complaint and not investigating the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and contrary to Article^'14 of the Constitution of^{lndia and and} consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to register the complaint of^the petitioner dt.2.5.2016 lodged to the 4th respondent and investigate inlo the matter and punish the 5th respondent.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 30329 0F 2016)

¶18

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the )ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed ln support of the petition, the High Co J t may be pteased to direct the 4th respondr:nt to regtster the complaint dt. 2.05 i 016 made to the 4th respondent by the oetitioner pending disposal of the above r, rit petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.RAMAKRISHNA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI R.LAXMIKANT- REDDY, AGP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

.c.,&r.1'.rF'

¶23

I I

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.24554 OF 2OL6

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Tt-ris Writ Petition is filed under Article 226^{of Constituttion} of India see king the following^{relief/ s:-}

¶28

". 1() issue writ or(ler or direction more particularl)' onc ill th(l naturc^ol wr it o[ lvlarldamus dr:clarir.tg rhc action of Respondeui^{Nos.2 to 4 in nol} registcring the conlt)laint and Irot rnvcstigating^{thr: satnc as illcgal,} rr|lrit|an, unjust and unreasortitble and contran'^{to Al-ticlel+ of th('} Constilutiorl of In(lla alld conseqttentlv^{clircct the resl)olr(lenl Nos.2 to} -l to rcgrst.'r the cornplitint oItl.Ie petitioner, dated 02 O5.20 1tr'^lodgcd to the.lLt'resl)on(lctll atrd illvestigiltc^{into the matteritlr(l} Ptllllslr^{tl)e 5rL'} n'sponclent-..."

¶29

I have hcard Mr. D. Ramakrishna, learned^{counsel for thc}

¶30

petrtioner Ernd Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned^Assistant Govcrrrment Pleader lor Home^{appearingforrespondent} Nos. I to 4

¶31

'll-re learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, upon due investigation^{in Crime No. 603 ol 2016, a} charge sheet was filed, which was^{subsequentlytaken on file as} C.C. No. 1134 of 2016. The trial culminated in^{the acquittal of} the accused by^judgment dated 03.¹ 1.2018.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits^{the said}

¶33

lactual position.

¶34

¶35

In view oi thc admitted dcvelopments, thc ;r'ievance raised in tl-ris u,rit petrlion has become infructuotts, a. the undcrlving criminal procecciirtgs havc :rlt-citdy attainecl {-1rr .lit-y 6-1'^11ra1 of acqLlittal. It is ir sr:ttlecl prin<:iple that r'vrit^jr r sdictiort under Articlc 226 of th,.'^(lon stitution o1' lndia is t-tot l,r be excrcised^tn acadcmic or irr frr-rr:t uous rnatters

¶36

Accordir-rglr'. having rcgard to the subrr r ;sious of both partics ar-rd tl're .jr-rdicral outcon)e in the urrr r rlying criminal procecdings, this Clourt is of'thc considerecl vicv that no further adjudication is ri':rrrante d. Thc s rit pctition. tl erelore, stands disposed of as havtng bccome ir-r[ructuous.

¶37

7 . Accordinglv. tl-ris rr riL pc:lition is dismisser: as infructltous. There shall bc r.ro orcler as to costs

¶38

Miscellan<'or-rs Petitions, pcnding if any, s1'ri'l stand closed

¶39

\ sd/-c.JYoTHt , ___-SS; STANT REGIgTRdd //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To 1 One CC to SRI D RAMAKRISHNA, Advocate fOP{i 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the S;r rte of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶41