Disposed

Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Sept 2025WP/29408/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct police to register an FIR on a 27.08.2015 complaint was disposed of with liberty, as the petition had remained pending for about ten years without any interim order preserving the grievance, and it was not just and proper to direct registration of a case after such lapse; the petitioner was left free to pursue remedies before the competent Court/authority in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the competent Court/authority and work out remedies in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

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

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29408 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Venkatesh, Age 24,Slo M. Madhav OCC caretaker for Good Samaritan R/o Plot No.1-6-46, RandB Defence Employees colony Kistamma Enclave, Alwal Venkatapuram.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

1. The Station House Officer,, Alawal Police Station. Hyderabad 3. Ch.Muralidhar, S/o not known Fl/o H.No.tvllG 16 BHEL Quarters Patancheru Hyderabad

¶13

1. Pradeep, S/o not Known Rl/o House No.187 RandB Kirstamaa enclave West Venkatapuram Alwal Secundrabad

¶14

1. Srinivas Reddy, S/o not known Ryo House No.144 RandB Kirstamaa enclave West Venkatapuram Alwal Secundrabad

¶15

.RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Art'rcte 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate wril, order or direction, declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in not^putting the law into motion by registering a FIR against the criminal activities of the Respondent 3 to 5, and declare such irresponsible behavior of the^police as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 and 14 of Part lll of the lndian Constitution.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 38114 OF 2015 )

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the^'l st respondent to immediately protect the life's of the old bed ridden people of the destitute home from the Respondents 3 to 5 who are trying to forcefully disposes the patients of the Destitute home ill the final disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R.SAMEER AHIIED

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.1E2 : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY,AGP FOR HOME - Counsel for the Respondents No.3to5:

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.294O8 of2O15

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard Sr! R.Sameer Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Iaxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the respondent No.2 in not registering a Crime on the basis of a complaint said to have been lodged by the petitioner on 27.08.2015 against respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite disclosure of cognizable offences, the police authorities failed to put the law into motion by registering a case. The petitioner therefore prays that such inaction of ttre police be declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.

¶33

¶34

However, it is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that there is no endorsement on the complaint dated 27.08.2015 and that he received an oral instruction to the effect that the petitioner never made any such complaint before the police.

¶35

This Court has considered the rival sub missions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the w'rit petition was hled in the year 2O15 and has remained pending without any interim order

¶36

¶37

being granted for the last. EvidentJy, the circumstances^prevailing as on 27.OA.2O15 or at the time of occulrence of the alleged incident cannot be presumed to be prevailing or existing after lapse of such a long period.

¶38

In the absence of any material or effective orders preserving the grievance, it mziy not be just and proper for this Cor:rt to issue a direction to the police to register a case. It would be more appropriate to leave it open to the petitioner to pursue remed.ies before the competent Court in accordance with law, if the petitioner is still so advised.

¶39

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court/authority and workout his remedies in accordance with law.

¶40

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶41

stand closed.

¶42

SDIA.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad

¶48

2 The Station House Officer, Alawal Police Station. Hyderabad

¶49

3 One CC to SRI R SAMEER AHMED, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶50

4 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUl

¶51

Two CD Copies.

ASK

HIGH COURT I

DATED:1010912925

{

1 nii S IA
:. il
()L:; 2 4 JAlt 2026
t s

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.29408 of 2015

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

t ,g

Venkatesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh 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

K. a. Bakshi, Vs The State of Telangana

P.Ambika Rani Andanother Vs the Govt of Telangana., Home Dept., and 5 Others

Macherla Kishan Kumar Goud S/0. Rajaiah, Vs The State of Telangana, Home

Madavarapu Srininvas Rao, Nalgonda District Vs Secretary, Home Dept., Hyderabad and 2 Others

Varla Satish Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Narayan Das Dalia, Vs The State of Telengana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary