Dismissed¶55

G.v.Ramana Reddy v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Nov 2025WP/29505/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, W.P. No.29505 of 2018, N. Tukaramji J., 14.11.2025. Mandamus sought against SHO Chandanagar / Cyberabad Commissioner for failure to arrest respondents 4 to 19 and delay in investigating court-referred Crime No.365/2018 (IPC Ss.307, 448, 450, 506, 149, 193 r/w 120-B), pleaded as violative of Ss.154 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. and Articles 14, 16, 21; IA No.1/2018 u/S.151 CPC for custodial interrogation. Proceedings quashed in Crl.P.No.6139 of 2022 vide order dated 16.11.2022; writ dismissed as infructuous, no costs. Keywords: delay in arrest, expedite investigation, Article 226, quashment renders writ infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶55

G.v.Ramana Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29505 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

G.V.Ramana Reddy, S/o.Chenna Reddy, Age-49Yrs, Occ-Advocate R/o. H. No. 1 -36-9/4, Rbad. No-5, Jawahar Colohy, C6andanagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

.,.PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State Of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home, TS Secretarrat, Hyd erabad.

¶13

2 The Police Commissioner, Cyberabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. The Station House officer, Chandanagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 Singareddy Rami Reddy, S/o. Kasi Reedy, Age.65 yrs, Occ-Retd. Employee. Srngareddy Janakiravamma, W/o. S.Rami Reddy, Age- 60 yrs, Occ- Housewife.

¶15

6 S. Shanthi Bhushan Reddy, S/o. S. Rami Reddy, Age- 38 Yrs, Occ- Pvt. Employee.

¶16

All 4,5-6 are the R/o. 4-70, f aenagar, Seri Lingampally, Hyderabad

¶17

7 Singareddy Venkatrami Reddy, S/o. Kasi Reddy, Age- 60^yrs, Occ- Agriculture.

¶18

Singareddy Pushpavathi, W/o. S. Venkatrami Reddy, Age- 55 Yrs, Occ- Housewife.

¶19

S. Suman Reddy, S/o. S. Venkatrami Reddy, Age- 35 Yrs, Occ- Taxi Driver

¶20

P. Subbamma, Wo. P. Govardhan Reddy, Age- 52^yrs, Occ- Housewife.

¶21

All 7 to 10 are the R/o. G-1 , Srinivasam Apartment, Vindu Hotel Line, Chandanagar, Hyderabad.

¶22

l l.Singareddy Atchi reddy, S/o. S. Gurava Reddy, Age- 54^yrs, Occ-^Pvt. Employee.

¶23

Singareddy l,4adan reddy, Sio. S. Gurava Reddy, Age- 50 yrs, Occ-^Pvt. Employee.

¶24

l3.Singareddy Gurava reddy, S/o. S. Kasi Reddy, Age- 6ii /'s,^{Occ- Agriculture.} All 1 1 to 13 are the R/o. vindu Hotel line, Chandanaga . Flyderaba I

¶25

1. lrla Sethamma, W/o. Late. Atchi Reddy, Age 58 yrs,^(); ; Agriculture 15.lrla Savithramma, W/o. Seetharam Reddy, Age 64 yrs ):c- Agriculture

¶26

lrla Varahal Reddy, S/o. Late. Kutumbha Reddy, Age li( 'y'rs, Occ- Agriculture

¶27

Singareddy Abhimanyu Reddy, S/o. Late. Venkat Red,j , Age-^{38 yrs} OccAgriculture.

¶28

Singareddy Anil Reddy, S/o Late Venkat Reddy, Age- I 2 yrs Occ Agriculture-

¶29

P. Vijay Reddy, S/o. Late. Nagi Reddy, Age- 31 yrs Occ Pv.t. Employee. All^'14 to'19 are the R/o. Ganapavaram Village, Kodad l? l\4. Suryapet Dist.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lr i a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thc High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly ()l er in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the in action of 3rd resc I rdent in taking the custody/arrest of 4th to 19th respondents for last more thz r 2months in a court referred case Vide Crime No.365/2018 for the ;ffences punishable U/s307,448,450,506,149,193,RlW12O b lPC,where as the 3rd respondent delaying investigation without following any procedure un J )i statu[es as illegal, arbitrary, high handness and against to the principles -. natural^ju stice and violative of Sec 154 and 156(3) Cr.P.C and Article^'1 ,i 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd F.e s londent to complete investigation as early as possible.

¶32

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c i lu m stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr: 7 be^pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to arrest the 4th to 19th respondent for, ustodial interrogation vide crime No.365/2018 for the ofr( lces punishable Uls.307,448,450,506 149,193,R4//'1 20 b IPC pending disp: ;al of the above writ petition.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JANARDHANA REDDY PONAKA

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 19:----

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I

\ \

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N.TUl., \FlAMJl

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.29505 OF 201{

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of O ,nstitution of lndia

¶44

seeking the following rellef

¶45

"... [o issue a writ order or direction more pafticula lv one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the itl ction of 3rd respondent in taking the custody/arrest of 4th to 1gh respondents for last more than 2months in a couri refered cas : Vide Crime No.365/2018 for the offences punishable U/s.307, < 48, 450, 506, 149, 193 R/W 120 b IPC where as the 3rd respcj lent delaying investigation without following any procedure un('c . sfarutes as illegal arbitrary high handness and against to th t principles of natural^justice and violative of Sec 1 54 and 1 56(.) Cr.P.C. and Adicle 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and ;onsequently direct the ld Respondent to comptete investigatirt, as ea y as posslb/e and to pass. ..."

¶46

Heard Mr. Janardhana Reddy Ponaka, learn€ I counsel for the

¶47

petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Gove r rment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.'1 to 3.

¶48

None appeared for the petitioner

¶49

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Hc me submits that, during the pendency of proceedings in Crime No t65 of 20'lB, the accused preferred a petition for quashment in Crl.p. ,1o.6139 of 2022, and this Court, by order dated 16.11.2022, quashe(l the proceedings. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner no long€^- survives.

¶50

¶51

NTR,J W.P.No.29505 of 20la

¶52

,,.

¶53

I have perused the material placed on record.

¶54

The petitioner contends that respondent No.3 failed to take the accused in Crime No.365 of 2018 into custody despite the lapse of two months from the registration of the crime and seeks a direction^to expedite the investigation in accordance with law. However, the development reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader^for Home makes it clear that the crime itself has been^quashed by this Court at the instance of the accused. ln view of the^quashment of^the proceedings, nothing further remains for consideration in this^petition.

¶55