Disposed¶37

Birdharaju Sudhakar Raju v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Apr 2025WP/26509/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-registration of FIR; complaint dated 05-09-2024 to SHO Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad; writ of Mandamus under Article 226; Section 173 BNSS; interim direction via I.A. under Section 151 CPC; unofficial respondents 5 and 6 (P. Padmaja, P. Sanjeev Kumar); notice dispensed with; disposed in terms of common order in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch dt. 10.03.2025; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; counsel A.D. Sai Rama Ratna Sarma, GP for Home, Raj Kumar Grandhi.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of, and for reasons alike, the common order in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch dt. 10.03.2025 (recording counsel's joint submission that the grievance regarding non-registration of the FIR is squarely covered thereby); miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed; no order as to costs. ¶37

Birdharaju Sudhakar Raju Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent No.4 (SHO, Miyapur Police Station) in not registering the FIR pursuant to the petitioner's complaint dated 05-09-2024 against Respondents 5 and 6 and others, despite the contents disclosing commission of cognizable offences, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 173 of BNSS, warranting issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing registration of the FIR and investigation.

¶18

Court's answer

The writ petition was disposed of for reasons alike those stated in, and in terms of, the common order in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch dt. 10.03.2025, with no order as to costs.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Notice to unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6 was dispensed with as not necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (T. Vinod Kumar, J.), W.P.No. 26509 of 2024, decided 16-04-2025: Petitioner, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, sought a writ of Mandamus declaring that Respondent No.4 (Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad) acted arbitrarily, illegally and contrary to Section 173 of BNSS in failing to register an FIR on his complaint dated 05-09-2024 against Respondents 5 and 6 and others, and sought a direction to register the FIR and investigate. An interim application under Section 151 CPC sought the same direction pending disposal. Counsel on both sides submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the common order of this Court in W.P.Nos.7159 of 2025 & batch dt. 10.03.2025. Recording the submission, the Court held notice to the unofficial respondents unnecessary and disposed of the writ petition for reasons alike and in terms of that common order, with no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.

¶1

t^3166I

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWTruTY TIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26509 OtF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Birdharaju Sudhakar Raju. S/o. B. Krishnam Raju, Aged about 54 years, Occ. euiines6, R/o.Ptot No.izfi7, Sardar Patel Nagar, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, RangaReddy District.

¶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 Commissionarate, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionarate, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionarate, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

Smt.P.Padmaja, Wo.P.Sanjeev Kumar, Aged about 55 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o.Plot No.10'13, Venkataramana Colony, Gokul Plots, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

P.Sanjeev Kumar, S/o.Not known to the Petitioner, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Rl/o. Plot No.1013, Venkataramana Colony, Gokul Plots, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 to declare the action of the Respondent No.4 in not registering the FIR in pursuant to the complaint dated 05-09-2024 made by the Petitioner against the Respondents No.s and 6 and others even in spite of the contents of the complaint clearly disclose the commission of the cognizable offences as

¶19

''il,

¶20

arbitrary, illegar and contrary to section 'r 73 of BNSS and consequenfly direct the Respondent No.4 to register the FrR in pursuant to the comptaint dated 0s-092024 made by the^petitioner against the Respondents No.S and 6 and others forthwith and proceed with the investigation in accordance with raw in the interest of^justice.

¶21

IANO:1OF2 o24

¶22

Petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No.4 to register the FIR in pursuant to the compraint dated 05-09-2024 made by the petitioner against the Respondents No.S and 6 and others forthwith pending disposar of the writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.D.SAI RAMA RATNA SARMA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : Gp FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondents No.5&6: SRI RAJ KUMAR GRANDHI

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶28

W.P.No. 265A9 of 2o24

¶29

ORDER

¶30

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the respondents-authorities, basing on thb complaint made by the petitioner on 05.O9.2024, are not initiating action by registering the FIR against the unofficial respondents herein, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Flome appearing for the official respondents, and perused the record.

¶33

Having regard to the nature ol lis involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.S & 6 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents submit that the issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.7159 of 2025 & batch, dt.10.03.2025, and the said cornmon order would apply in all force to the facts ol the present case.

¶35

¶36

Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the aforesaid Writ Petition s, uide W.p.Nos.7159 of 2O2S & batch, dt. 10.03.2025, and in terms thereof, the present Writ petition is

¶37

also disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶38