Disposed¶36

Palsa Jagan @ Jagadeeshwar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Oct 2025WP/29072/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, W.P. No. 29072 of 2025, order dated 17-10-2025 (N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.). Keywords: non-registration of FIR; complaint dated 26-07-2025; Section 173 BNSS; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Section 151 CPC interim application; Kandukur Police Station; Rachakonda Commissionerate; complaint closed as civil in nature; cause does not survive; writ petition closed; no costs; no merits adjudication; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was closed on the strength of counsel's submission that the cause did not survive, the respondent authorities having closed the petitioner's complaint as civil in nature. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed. No costs awarded. ¶36

Palsa Jagan @ Jagadeeshwar Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not registering an FIR pursuant to the petitioner's complaint dated 26-07-2025 against Respondent No. 6 and others, despite the complaint allegedly disclosing commission of cognizable offences, was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 173 BNSS, warranting a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 5 to register the FIR and proceed with investigation.

¶20

Key takeaways

Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for adjudication (the respondent authorities having closed the petitioner's complaint as civil in nature), the Court held that no further orders were required to be passed and closed the writ petition; miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stood closed, with no costs. No issue was adjudicated on merits.¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) W.P. No. 29072 of 2025, High Court for the State of Telangana (decided 17-10-2025, N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.): Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 173 BNSS the respondents' failure to register an FIR on his complaint dated 26-07-2025 against Respondent No. 6 and others despite alleged disclosure of cognizable offences, and a direction to Respondent No. 5 (SHO, Kandukur Police Station) to register the FIR and investigate; interim application under Section 151 CPC filed. At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities had closed the complaint as civil in nature and the cause did not survive for adjudication. The Court, recording the submission, closed the writ petition; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed; no costs. No point was decided on merits; no precedent value on the question of mandatory FIR registration.

[^32ss l

) I I

: ,! I

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

¶5

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 290720F 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Palsa- Jagan @ {agadeeshwar, S/o.palsa pentaiah, Aged about 64 years, pcc..Agriculture, Fl/o.Gummadavelli Village, Kandukur Manda{, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State_of _Terangana, Rep. by its principar secretary, Horne Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionarate, Rarga Reddy District.

¶15

The Deputy _commissioner of porice, Rachakonda comrnissionarate, Maheswaram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

The Assistant commissioner of porice, Rachakonda corffnissionarate, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Kandukur police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

Igtqgqrl Srinivas, S/o.Y.Venkatesham, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, Ryo.H.No.1-52, Gummadavelli Village,^-Kandukur Mdnda{,' R;,1g;-C;;y District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Higrh 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.s in not r€gistering the FIR in pursuant to the complaint dated 26-07 -2o2s made ty the petitioner against the Respondents No.6 and others even in spite of the contents of the complaint clearly disclose the commission of the cognizable offences as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to section^'173 of BNSS and consequenfly direct the

( p

rh lE :ot Ig

Respondent No.5 to register the [:lR in pursuant to the co rplaint dated 26-072025 made by the Petitioner against the Respondents No. I and others forthwith and proceed with the investigation in accordance with la,v.in the interest of justice.

¶25

lA NO:^'l oF 2025

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.5 to register the FIR in pursuant tc the complaint dated 26-07 -2025 made by the Petitioner against the Responde ts No.6 and others forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest c justice.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P I{AGENDRA REDDY

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR HOME

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 : --

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

¶32

r I

¶33

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEN.V.SHRAVANKUIIAR} WRIT PETITION No.29O72 oF^2O2E

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

When the matter is taken up for^{hearing, learned counsel} for the petitioner submits that^{the cause in the writ petition} does not survive for adjudication^{an5rmore as the respondent} authorities closed the complaint of^{the petitioner as civil in} nature and submits that no^{furtherorders are required to be} passed in the present writ petition.

¶36