Dismissed

Khaja Azeemuddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Nov 2025WP/24709/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought a direction to investigate an FIR which police allegedly failed to act upon. The State reported that investigation was completed and a final report classifying the dispute as civil was filed before the Magistrate. The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, reserving liberty to approach the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed as infructuous without costs, liberty reserved to seek remedies before the learned Magistrate.

Khaja Azeemuddin Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

: tl ,:tl

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETI TION NO: 24709 0F 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

[fujq . fg"[rddin,^{S/o Shaiktmam,} {9ed about 48 years, occ. Business, R/o H.NO.1B-11-30t28t29. Mumtaz B5gh,^{-CG;d;ayangutta,} Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶10

AND

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

The state of relanoana. Rep by its principar secretary Department of Home, Secreta riat, Hvdera-bad_

¶13

Ihu .Commissioner^of ^^polics, Rachakonda, Cyberabad police 9ommissionerate,^{At Gachi Bowti,Ranga nuaOv} Oiiiii"t.

¶14

J rne ueputy Commissioner of police,- Shamshabad Zone, at RGIA police Station, Shamshabad, Hvderabad.

¶15

The Station House Offiier Maila(evpally police Station, At Mailardevpally, E Mis. R.ang_a Dagha Traders, Reddy District, Rep Telangana b-y Mr. State. Narender Sugandhi ' s/o not known to the petitioner, ased maior. bcc. no_voiii",^{-"nld-'crgr;i;ffi'''Viiir;;,} Rajendranagai Mandal, Ranga Reddy Oisiiiii.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the officiar respondents in not taking action on the F.l.R.No.587l2o11 dt.o5-07-2018 on the file of the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutiona I and in violafion of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and consequenfly direct the officiar respondents to investigate into the F.l.R No.5g7l201g dt.05-07_2018 on the file of the 4th respondent by foilowing the mandatory provisions of the criminar Procedure Code

I i I l

IA NO:10F 2018

petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circ.rlstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court r ay be preased to direct the officiar respondents to investigate lnto tn" :.r.R.No.5g7l2018 dt 05-07-2019 on the fire of the 4th respondent by forowlr g the mandatory provisions of the criminar procedure code, pending disposzrr of the main writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. ,(AMAL si / rvc H ,t^l#"'[3Ei])DRA

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI D. 'RADEE',^{AGr FOR HOME} Counsel for the Respondent No.S:_-

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICT N.TUKARAMJI}

¶27

WRIT PETITIO^{N No.247O9 0F 2018}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ^{Petition is fi1ed under Article 226 of Constitution} of India seeking^{the following relief/s:-}

¶30

"...to issue an^{appropriatewrit, order ordirectionmore} particularly o.r.^{i., [he nature of Writ of Mandamus declaringthe} action of ihe^{official respondents in not taking action on the} ffn-No.Ssz7zo18^{dt.o5-b7-2o18 on the file of 4h respondent as} *Ult.uty, illegal,^{unconstituLional and in violation of Articles 14'} it ^rra' boo^{-e of the Constitutionof India and consequenLly} direct the ofhcial^{respondentstoinvestigateintothe} n.i-e-No.^{sszTzO 18 dt.os-o72o18 on the file of 4rh respondent bv} following the mandatory^{provisionsof the Criminal Procedure} Code and to Pass.^."

¶31

None appeared^{on behalf of the petitioner'}

¶32

Heard Mr.D.Pradeep,^{learned Assistant Government Pleader} for Home appearing^{for respondent Nos' 1 to 4'}

¶33

karned Assistant^{Government Pleaderfor Home submits} that, based^{on the petitioner's representation' Crime No' 587 of} 2O18 was duiy^{investigated,and a hnal report was hledon} 30.O7.2O 18^{before the Court of the XII Additior-ral Judicial} Magistrate of^{First Class, Rajendranagar' classiffing the matter} as ciuil in nature.^{Accordingly,it is submitted that the contention} of the^{petitioner does not survive for consideration'}

¶34

5 I have perused^{the material availableon record'}

¶35

¶36

ItI

¶37

The grievance of the petitioner is that the ret 1 ondent^police authorities have failed to take appropriate actiorl in^{Crime No.} 587 of 2O18. However, as reported by the lear ted Assistant Government Pleader for Home, during the^perr,[enc1, of^this petition, the respondent police authorities have drt 1, investigated the matter and hied a final report before the learr ed Magistrate classifying the dispute as ciuil in nature. This development indicates that the respondent police authorities ht,e acted upon the petitioner's representation and have submitt:1 their report before the competent Court.

¶38

7 . In r.ier.l. of the above, the grievance of the p<:l rtioner stands elfectively addressed, and nothing further remains for acijudication in this writ petition. Hou.ever,^'eserving the petitioner's liberty to avail appropriate remed t s belore the learned Magistrate, if any cause still survives, this^{I y'rit} Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shal1 be no order,r; to costs

¶39

Miscellaneous Pg!i,tlq1q, pending if any, shall ;tand closed

¶40

To,

¶41

¶42

One CC to SRI. THAKUR CHANDRA KAMAL SINGH, \dvocate tOPUCI 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State rf Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911112025

ORDER

WP.No.24709 of 2018

-..a '- .'-! (,
t'/, , i i4 I
c
a,<br>)'
toJ 6 lAR W6 z

cI

¶48

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INI:RUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

tlr6'
a"

Khaja Azeemuddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Azeemuddin 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

Ch Sudhakar Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Gandhi Sanjiva Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana.

Smt. Atiya Sultana Vs The Director General Of police and 5 others

Battu Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

Mekala Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Parini Veera Venkata Gangadhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh