Disposed

Gaddaguti Naresh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Apr 2025WP/27629/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing police to register an FIR on his complaint dated 23.09.2024 alleging trespass by private respondents. Police had closed the complaint as 'civil in nature' after enquiry. The Court granted liberty to pursue remedies under the BNSS and disposed of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to avail further remedies under the BNSS; no costs.

Gaddaguti Naresh Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

¶4

TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 27629 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gaddaguti Naresh, S/o Late Gaddaguti Nara yana, Aged about 45 Yrs., Occ. Business. R/o H No.1-83, Maheshwaram Vil Iage and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

2 The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate Neredmet X Road, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram Police Station, Ranga Reddy District

¶15

4 M/s JB Infra, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri. Mqhan^Reddy Plot^{No. 1} ,^2nd and 3rd floor, adjacent to B,D. Reddy Gardens, Chaithanya Nagar,^B.N. Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad 500070, Telangana and also JB Nature Villa, 7-18, 7-1B, Sai Nagar, colony, Peddamberpef, HayathNagar, Hyderibad, Telangana.

¶16

E Sri. Qoverdhan^{Reddy, S1o not known to petitroner Managing Partner M/s. JB} lnfra. Plot No. 1, 2nd and 3rd floor, adjacent tq B,D Reddy Gardens. Chaithanya Nagar, B N. Reddy Npgar, Hyderabad 500070, Telangana and also JB Nature^Villa, 7-18,^7-'l B,^{Sai Nagarcolony, Peddambqrpet.} Hayathnagar, Hyderabad, Telan'gana.

¶17

6 Sri Jagan Reddy, Slo net known lo^petitioner Aged about. 45 Yrs ,^Occ. Managing Partner M/s. JB lnfra, Plot No.^1, 2nd and 3rd^floor, adjacent^{to B,D.} Reddy Gardens, Chaithanya Nagar. B.N Reddy Nagar. Hyderabad 500070 Telangapa and also JB Nature Villa, 7-18, 7-18, Sai Nagar colony, Pbddamberpet. Hayathnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petitign under Article^{226 o'f lhe} Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} crrcumstance$ stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a Wr.it, Order or Direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the^{action of the respondentpolice} rn not registering^theFIR

¶20

on the^{report made by the Petitioner on 2310912024against} the respondent No.4 to 6 who^{are illegally trespassed and attackedcaused losses} to the^petitioner is highly illegal,^{arbitrary and againstthe principlesof natural justice} and also violative of Articles^{14, 19,21 of Constitution of lndia and also violation} of apbx court rulings held^{in Lalitha KumariVs. Govt. of UP and} ors and^cgnsequently direct the 3rd respondent^{po|ce forlhwith shall register FIR against respondent} fuo.4 to 6 in the interest^{of justice}

¶21

IA NO:1^OF 24

¶22

'Petition under Seclion 151 CPC praying thal in the cirqumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the} writ^petitiqn, the High Court may be^pleased to direct^{the prd respondentpglice} to^register FIR basing on thd report of the petitroner daled^23109t2024 against the respondent tto + io 7, pen(ing disposal of the main^writ Betition

¶23

Counsel^for lhe^{Petitionqr:Sfil. P} N ARUN KUMAR

¶24

Counsel^{for the Responqentr1e5.1} !o^3: QF FgR HOME

¶25

Counsgl^{for tfig Respondent} Nos.4 !g^6: .'.:

¶26

The Court^{made the following:OR9FR}

¶27

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶29

o,27 29 024

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned GovernmenL Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

¶32

Having regard to the manner of disposar of the writ petition at the admission stage and the nature of /s involved, this Court is of the. view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 6 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ petition.

¶33

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though he has approached the respondents-authorities and submitted representation/compraint, dt.23.09.2024, the said compraint is not acted upon by the respondents by registering FIR against respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein, which action oF the respondents_authorities it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the dicta laid down by the Hon,bre Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari v,/s. Government of llttar pradestf.

¶34

L (2014) 2 SCC 1

¶35

¶36

¶37

Per contra, Iearned Government^{Pleaderfor Home appearingon} behalf of respondent^{Nos.l to 3 would submitthat the respondents-} authorities on^{receivingthe aforesaid representationof the petitioner} dt.23.0g.2024,^{havecausedenquiry into the same and closed the said} complaint as^{"civil in nature" on 08.10.2024.}

¶38

Learned Government^{Pleaderfurther submitsthat on the} respondents causing^{enquiryand thereafter closing the aforesaid} complaint as^{"civil in nature" on 08.10.2024, have issuedintimation to the} petitioner informing of the action^{taken through PetitionManagement} System and^{send a copy by registered post, dt'08'10'2024'}

¶39

I have taken^{note of the respectivecontentions urged'}

¶40

Having regard to^{the submissions madeas above,and takingnote} of the fact^{that the respondents-authoritiesafter enquiring having closed} the complaint^{of the petitioner aS.'civilin nature,,,this Court is of the view} that the^{petitionershouldbe relegatedto avail furtherremediesprovided} under the BNSS,^{if he is aggrievedby the aforesaid action taken by the} respondents-authorities.

¶41

B Granting liberty^{as noted above, the Writ Petitionis disposed of' No} order as to costs.

t \