Disposed¶62

Md. Khaleel, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Oct 2025WP/30110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court writ petition mandamus police inaction enquiry complaint theft Vikarabad SHO Crime No. 299 of 2025 Section 303(2) BNS notices Section 35(3) and 35(6) BNSS second complaint threats non-cognizable GD entry requisition to Magistrate pending disposed of with consent expedite complaints in accordance with law no costs miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with consent: respondent No. 5 (SHO, Vikarabad Police Station) directed to expedite the petitioner's complaints and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed. ¶62

Md. Khaleel, Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (Vikarabad police authorities) to conduct any enquiry on the petitioner's complaint is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, entitling the petitioner to a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 5 to investigate/conduct enquiry against respondent No. 6.

¶29

Court's answer

In view of the steps already taken and pending (registration of Crime No. 299 of 2025, ongoing investigation, and requisition to the Magistrate), the writ petition is disposed of with consent, directing respondent No. 5 - SHO of Vikarabad Police Station to expedite the complaints given by the petitioner and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

Key takeaways

As a sequitur, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (N.V. Shravan Kumar, J), decided 07-10-2025 - MD Khaleel v. State of Telangana & others (W.P. No. 30110 of 2025). The petitioner sought mandamus against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for not conducting any enquiry on his complaints against respondent No. 6. Per instructions of the Sub-Inspector, Vikarabad Town Police Station: on the petitioner's complaint of theft of construction material dated 23.08.2025 against respondent No. 6, Crime No. 299 of 2025 was registered under Section 303(2) BNS and investigation taken up; four witnesses were examined; notices were issued to respondent No. 6 under Sections 35(3) and 35(6) of the BNSS on 24.08.2025 and 25.08.2025, and investigation was ongoing. On the petitioner's second complaint dated 24.08.2025 against respondent No. 5 and his sons (alleged threats to withdraw the criminal case), a GD entry was made; the contents being non-cognizable, a requisition dated 24.08.2025 for the Magistrate's permission to investigate was pending. Held: writ petition disposed of with consent, directing respondent No. 5 - SHO to expedite the petitioner's complaints and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.

i I : I

[³²⁵⁵ ]

4'+

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

¶6

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO: 30110 OF 2025

¶11

¶12

Between:

¶13

MD Khaleel, S/o. MD. Shareefuddin, Aged 48^years, Occ. Business,^R/o H.No.2-5-27 I 2O5, Saj id P|aza, Attapur, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER

AND

1 State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Office at Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

2 The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶19

{

¶20

¶21

3 The Superintendent of^police, Vikarabad District. T G

¶22

4 The Deputy Superintendent of police, Vikarabad District. T.G

¶23

The Station House Officer, Vikarabad police station. Vikarabad, district, T.G.

¶24

¶25

6 Md. Mujeeb, S/o Md Shafiuddin, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Govt employee R/o H.No.4-1-492, Alampally Raod Vrkarabad District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petitron under Article 226 of the Constrtution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled therewith. the High Court^{may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more pa(icularly oneⁱⁿ nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents^more particularly Respondent No.3 to 5, not conducting any enquiry upon the complaint of the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and^{gross violation} of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 2'1 of Constitutron of lndia, and consequently direct the Respondent more^particularly Respondent^No. 5,^to conduct the inquiry against the Respondent No. 6,

f &

.+.

lA NO:'l OF 2025

.i*,

i #

Petition unier Section 151 CPC praying that in the r:ircurnstances stated rrr the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C,r rrt nray be pleased to drrect the Respordent No. 5, to tnvestigate the complaint;rnd <;onduct the inqurry aga inst the Respondent NO.6.

¶36

Counsel for the F'etitioner : SRI MIRZA MAHMOOD ALtEli\lG

¶37

Counsel for the Ftespondent Nos. 1 to 5: AGP FOR HOME

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: ----

¶39

¶40

The Court made the following: ORDER

t +

_-tr..,!- ...fltBffirr

¶50

i {t I I t

¶51

'J,

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶53

WRIT PETITION No.3O1LO of 2o25

¶54

ORDER:

¶55

'l'his writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in not conducting any enquiry upon the petitioner's complaint. A consequential prayer is sought to direct respondent No.5 to conduct enquiry against respondent No.6

¶56

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Hom e appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶57

I-earned Assistalt Government Pleader for Home placed copy of instructions issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vikarabad Town Police Station, Vikarabad District, wherein it is submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint with respondent No.5 S.H.O., Vikarabad Police Station, Vikarabad District stating that on 23.O8.2O25, the respondent No.6 has committed theft ol construction material of the petitioner / complainalt. Based on the said complaint, a case has been registered uide Crirne No.299 of 2025 under Section 3O3 (2) BNS against respondent No.6 and investigation has been taken up. During the course ol investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence and four (O4) witnesses have bee n examined and their

¶58

¶59

statements \vere recorded in detail. As per the statements recorded, evidence was coliected and as per l:re investigation conducted srt far, prima facie has been estal:1isi-red against respondent flo.6 - accused. Thereafter noticesr under Section 35(3) and 35(6) of BNSS have been issued to resl)ondent No.6 on 24.O8.2025 and 25.O8.2025 respectively uncler proper acknowledgment. It is further submitted that invr:stigation is going on ani a, appropriate report wourd be ed before the competent Ceurt.

¶60

It is further submittecl that the petitioner lodged another complaint on 24.O8.2025 against respondent No 5 and his sons stating that his two sons are threatening thtr petitioner to withdraw the criminal case lodged against resporrdent No.6 ancl also abused irr filthl. language. Based on the sail complaint, GD entry was made. Since the contents of the conrirlaint are non_ cognizable, the respondent No.5 made a re rluisition dated 24.08.2025 to the concerned Magistrate for accorcling permission to investigate into the matter and the same is pencling. After obtaining perrrission, necessary action will be tal.;en as per 1aw. It is further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are incorrect a,d baseiess and that t.ee respondent No.S is acting upon the petitioner,s complaint arrd the same is pending.

¶61

¶62

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of rvith consent, directing respondent No.5 - S.H.O. of Vikarabad Police Station to expedite the complaints given by the petitioner and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with lari. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

As a sequei thereto, miscellaneous applications if any

¶64

pending, in tl-ris petition, shall stand closed

¶65

¶66

//TRUE COPY//

¶67

SD/-P. PONNA^KRISHNA S TANT REGISTRAR

¶68

SECTION OFFICER

¶69