Manepalli Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Manepalli Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: impugned Memo dated 04.10.2024 set aside; respondents directed to consider appointment of Grade-I Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Aravapalli Phani Kumar (VII Additional Sessions Judge Court, Nampally), as suggested by the petitioner, for Crl.A.No.216/2022, or communicate reasons if another Public Prosecutor is proposed; appointment to be completed within three weeks of receipt of the order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Memo dated 04.10.2024 issued by respondent No.3, declining entrustment of Crl.Appeal No.216/2022 to Smt. P. Sailaja, Public Prosecutor, solely on the ground that the appeal is at an 'ending stage', is sustainable, and whether the petitioner, a victim/de facto complainant, is entitled to have a Public Prosecutor of his suggestion appointed to conduct the pending appeal.

Court's answer

Given the petitioner's apprehension that the appeal is not being properly conducted, the petitioner has a right, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited (Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh), to suggest the name of a Public Prosecutor.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner can suggest a Public Prosecutor who is presently among the panel of Public Prosecutors, and there should be no embargo in appointing such Public Prosecutor for diligent pursuit of pending Crl.A.No.216 of 2022.

Key takeaways

The Memo dated 04.10.2024 issued by respondent No.3 is set aside, and the respondents are directed to consider appointing Grade-I Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Aravapalli Phani Kumar, presently working in the VII Additional Sessions Judge Court at Nampally, as suggested by the petitioner, for expediting pending Crl.A.No.216 of 2022.ratio¶48
If the respondents propose to appoint another Public Prosecutor, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner with reasons substantiating why Sri Aravapalli Phani Kumar cannot be appointed for the pending appeal.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.), disposing of a writ petition under Article 226 filed by the de facto complainant/victim in Cr.No.12/2011 (Tukaramgate Police Station), challenging Memo dated 04.10.2024 of respondent No.3 refusing to entrust Crl.Appeal No.216/2022 - preferred against the acquittal in C.C.No.162/2017 dated 04.07.2022 - to Smt. P. Sailaja, Public Prosecutor, on the ground that the appeal was at an 'ending stage'. Applying Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat ((2004) 4 SCC 118), the Court held that the affected petitioner had the right to suggest the name of a Public Prosecutor and that no embargo should exist on appointing a Public Prosecutor so suggested from the existing panel. The impugned Memo was set aside; respondents were directed to consider appointing Grade-I Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Aravapalli Phani Kumar (VII Additional Sessions Judge Court, Nampally) as suggested, and, if another Public Prosecutor is proposed, to communicate reasons substantiating why he cannot be appointed; the appointment was to be completed within three weeks, the appeal having pended for three years. Writ petition disposed of without costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

[^32ss ]

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

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 32515 0F 2024

Between

Manep_qlli Mohan Rao, S/o. Krishna Rao, Aged about 47 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.9, Lapakshi Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, Telangana State-500 026.

...PETITIONER

ANO

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

. 2. The Director General of police, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

The Principle. Secretary to the Government, Home (Courts. A) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Director of Prosecution, DGP Office Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

; ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of 1tn6;rlrr"r'ng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated.3'1.07.2024 and consequentially set aside the Memo No.4281- P/Courts. A.12O24, darted.04.10.2024 issued by{lie responclent No.3. OF

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,ihe High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated.31 .o7 .2024

----7

and stay the operation of the Memo No.4281-PlCouns.A.l2l24, dated.O4.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.3,^pending disposal of the^writ petition.

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 direct the respondents to recall the earlier G.O and to appoint new^public prosecutor through separate G.O and one of the Grade- 1 Additional Public Prosecutor by name Aravapalli Phani Kumar presently working in the Hon'ble Vll Additional Sessions Judge court at Nampally and Jurisdictional to my case to argue^.the matter and for appoint of through G.O. by the Home department, pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.RAGHUNATH, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI VEERA BABU GANDU

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.32515 of 2o24

ORDER:

Heard Sri V.Raghunath, Ieatrned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learnccl^(]ovcrnmcnt l)lcerrler for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I to 5. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal.

This writ petition is iilcd questioning the Memo dated 04.LO.2024 issur:d b.v' rcsporrdt:rrL No.3 re:ge.rrding the enLrustment of Crl.Appeal No.216l202'2 on the filc of VI AMSJ-cunr-Spl.Judge for SC/S'f (POA) Act Court, Secunclcrabad to Smt.P.Sailaja, Public Prosecutor, Prl.Sessions Court, Srrnga Rccldy District as not feasible as the appeal proceedings are i-rt cncling stage.

Iracts in brief as stated in the alfidavit are that the petitioner is a defacto complainant in Cr.No. 12-O l20ll registergl before the Tukaramgate l)olice Station.⁽⁾ⁿ 30.08.20] 1, petitioncr lodged a complaint against Accurscd Nos. 1 ro 6 in which, it is stal.ed that A.1 to A.4 being the principlc vcndors chcatcd pctitioner by inducing to deliver Rs.24,OO,0O0/- tor the proper:ty bearing No.S-7-2227 to 3-7228, Sy.No.30 and 40, adrneasuring 340 sq.yds., situated at Kakaguda, Secunderabad u,liich was lrerudulently registered by suppressing certain facts in tavour of Bheemshetty Sreedhar by colluding and committing criminarl c<lnspiracy rn'ith Dinesh Dattar who was Sub-Rcgistrar, Rcd I-lills, llvclt:re.rbald w,t'rich r,vas already sold to

/ ./

''.- --{

the petitioner, which caused u,rongful loss to the petitioner. After completion of investigation, Police, Tukaramgate Police Station filed charge shect on 30.12.2011 and thc Court took c:osnizance for the ofences undcr Sections 418,42O,406, 467 and l2O-F\ IPC and Section 82 of Registration Act, 1908 and numbered it as c c.No.lio0/2olr. Subsequently, the then Joint Sub-Registrar (Dinesh Dattar) was impleaded as Accuscd No.6 as per Lhe orders in Crl. M. P.N o.2343 I 20 12.

The petitioner's case is that the trial Court acquitted 4.6 inspite of the fact that a petition was filcd lor rectificatiorr of earlier charges by the learned senior Adciitional l)ublic l,rosccuto r uide crl.M.P.No.92l2or7 dated 09.o7.2o19. 'lhc l)rosccurion has filed crl.Appeal No.21612022 through Public Prosecuror. Metropolitan Session Judge court, Nampally, Hvdcrabad to set ersic{c thc judgement of xxll Adcll.chicf Metropolirarr Magistratc, Hyderabad in C.C.No. 162l2Ol7 dated 04.O7.2022 and acquittecl^-r.he accused in Cr.No. l2Ol2O1 1, Tukaramgatc Poli<:c Station, Secundr:r'abaed for the said offences. Learned counsel f<>r the petitioner submits that petitioner has good grounds in appeal. The respondi:nt No.5 requested the Public Prosecutor, Metropolitan Session .Juclge tl-rrough letter No.Legal- llOS}Ol2022 d,ated 11.08.2022 to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 04.O7.2022 on the file of X-KII Addl.Chief Metropolitan MagistrzLtc Oourt, Sc<:underabad in C.Ct.No. 162l2Ol7 and basing on the requcsl madc b-r,' rcspondent No.5, rcspondent No.4

I
l
I

-)

entrusted petitioner's case Lo one Smt. K. Srivani, Addl.public Prosecutor, Gr.l, IV Addl.Metropolitan Sessions court, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that the said K.Srivani, Addl.public prosecutor, Gr.l, IV Addl.Metr<>politan Sr:ssi<>n .Iurig<: court, H.ydcrabad due to her ill-health was not able to conclucl petitioner's case diligently and further requested Ms.Sailaja, u,ho knovvs about the case and also prepared appeal grounds after thc direction from respondent No.5 uide letter No. i /0590/ 220'22 clatecr I I .og.2o22 and acgordingly petitioner made a request to respondent No.l reqr-resting to appoint Smt.Sailaja, Public Prosecutor working at Mctropoliran Sessions Judge, Nampally and that the next date or- hcaring \,as on 26.02.2o4. However, respondent No.3 by impugncd Mem. clated 04.Lo.2024 has informed that the appointment of Smt.Saila..la, Public Prosecutor is not feasible, as the appeal proceedings are ar cnding stage. eucstioning the same, the present writ petition is filcd.

Learned senior counser appearing for the p&i,iorr.. draws attention of this court to thc Mcmo dated o4.1o.2o24 wherein a request was made to enrrusr criminal Appeal No.2I6 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessior-rs Juclgc-cum-Special Judge for sc/ST (PoA) Act court, Secunderabad to Smt. p. Sailaja, public Prosecutor, Prl. Sessions Court, Sangaredd_1,* is not feasible for acceptance as it is in ending stage of saicl appeal proceedings. Learned senior counsel subnriLtcci that no cogenL reasons have been given and the petitioner is a victirn of crirne and ofl'ences are serious in

4

nature. In sttcl-r^{circumstances,it is just and nccr)ssary to appoint} Special^public Prosccutor.^{Learneci scnior counscl further submits} that the petitioner^{on earlieroccasionhas addresseda letter on} 31.07.2024 to the^{Hon'blePrl. Home Secretary,Telangana State,} Hyderabad narrating^{the reasons for appointmento[ Smt' Sailaja, as} public Prosectrtoruvho is working at Metrop<-llitar-r Sessions^Judge Court at Nampally. In^{the affidavit, filcd in support of I.A'No'1 of} 2025, it is submittecl^{that the petitioner has requested to rccall the} earlier Governmcnt^{Order i.e., G.O.tRt.No.2379datccl 16' 11 '2022 and} to appoint nert'^{Public Prosecutor throughscparatcG.t) and onc of the} Grade-l Adclitional^{Pubtic Prosecutor by namc Mr. ArzrvapalliPhani} Kumar presently^{working in the []on'blc VII AdditionalSessions Judge} Court at Nampally^{also has jurisciictionto thc pctiLioncr's case to} argue the matte r^{and appoint him by r,r'ayo[ GovernmcntC)rder by the} Home Departmcnt.^{[n supportof his case, learncd senior counsel} refers to a decision^{ofHon'ble Apex Court bqtw'eenZAHIRA} HABIBULLA H.^{SHEIKH VS. STATE OF. GUJARATIT'T'hCTCiN it U'AS} held that it is^{opcn to the affected persolls to suggest atly name rvhich} may also be^{taken into accountin the decision of appointingPublic} Prosecutor

Per contrcr^{learned Governmcnt Pleadc:r appearingfor Home} submits that^{thc appointment of the Special Public Prosecutoris sole} discretion of thc^{Covernment anci that thcre are abrlut 8Public} Prosecutors^{inLhe same grade and thc respondentNo.4'uvould} '^{(zoo+)4 scc l-i8}

5

\ \

recommend and respondent No.3 would appoint among thc available Public Prosecutors.

7 Heard learned counsel on cither side ancl perused the record.

B. Since the petitioner's apprehension that thc appeal is not being properly conducted, and that the petitioner has a right to suggest the name of Public Prosecutor in terms of the decision cited supra, as held by the Hon'ble Apex court, the petitioner can suggest the name of a Public Prosecutor who is at prcscnt onc arnongst tlic panel of the Public Prosecutors as such Lhcre should n()t be a.-; embargo in appointing such public prosecuL(>r in diligcnLl_1. pursuing the pending Crl.A.No.216 of 2022.

In that view.of the matter, thc Mcmo clarcd 04.10.2O24 issued by respondent No.3 is set aside ancl ttrc responclents arcr directed to consider the appointment of one Grade-l Aclditional Public prosecutor by name sri Aravapa.ili phani KLlmar, prcsently *3rting in vII Additional Sessions .Judge court at Nampallf ,s sugges[ed by the petitioner for expediting the pending crl.A.No.2 l6 of 2022 or if the respondents propose to appoint another l)ubtic prosecuror, the same shall be communicated to the petitioners b.v substantiating the reasons why Sri Aravapalli phani Kurnar, prcscntly wr.rrking in vII Additional Sessions Judge court at Nampally cannot be appointed for the pending Appeal.

. \ ''-' '=-- -j.{

6

{

It is also^{madeclcar that sincc the appeal is pcrrding for the last} three years and^{inthe interest of justice,this Court deems it} appropriate that^{the appointment of Public Prosecutor in crl.Appeal} No.216 of^{2022 on rhe file of learned VI AdditionalMetropolitan} Sessions.Ju<lge-cum-special^{.Iudgc for scis'l(l'}oA) Act court,} Secunderabacl^{shall be completedby the respondentswithin a period} of (03) weeks^{from the date of receipt of copy of this orcler.}

With thcse obsr:rvations, '*,rit^{petition is dilprlse:clof'No order}

as to costs-

Misccllaneous^{apptications,if any pending,shall standclosed.}

.PONNA KRISHNA ANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY// ! SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

The Director General of Police, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

The Principle Secretary to the Government, Home (Cq;lrts-A) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Director of Prosecution, DGP Office'Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

Ong CC to SRI VEERA BABU GANDU, Advocate [OPUC]

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the-r State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

Two CD Copies

BSR

PMK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0311112025

ORDER

WP.No.32515 ot 2024

i
.: l.r^
:,
,
2{l0lM
l t
Spnrc
I

6

DTSPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION,-"

WITHOUT COSTS

$

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Memo No.4281/P/Courts.A/2024 dated 04.10.2024 issued by respondent No.3 intimating that entrustment of Crl.Appeal No.216/2022 (pending before VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Court, Secunderabad) to Smt. P. Sailaja, Public Prosecutor, Prl. Sessions Court, Sangareddy, is not feasible as the appeal proceedings are at ending stage.¶38
Respondent No.3 - Principle Secretary to the Government, Home (Courts.A) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad · 04.10.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner, de facto complainant in Cr.No.12/2011 of Tukaramgate Police Station, lodged a complaint on 30.08.2011 against Accused Nos.1 to 6 alleging that A.1 to A.4, principal vendors, cheated him by inducing delivery of Rs.24,00,000/- towards property bearing Nos.3-7-227/228, Sy.No.30 and 40, admeasuring 340 sq.yds. at Kakaguda, Secunderabad, fraudulently registered in favour of Bheemshetty Sreedhar.¶31
Prior proceeding
After investigation, charge sheet filed on 30.12.2011; Court took cognizance of offences under Sections 418, 420, 406, 467, 120-B IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, numbered C.C.No.(printed) 160/2011.¶34
Prior proceeding
The then Joint Sub-Registrar (Dinesh Dattar) was impleaded as Accused No.6 pursuant to orders in Crl.M.P.No.2343/2012.¶34
Prior proceeding
Trial Court, by judgment in C.C.No.162/2017 dated 04.07.2022 (XXII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad / X-KII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Secunderabad), acquitted the accused in Cr.No.12/2011 despite a rectification petition (Crl.M.P.No.92/2019 dated 09.07.2019) filed by the senior Additional Public Prosecutor.¶35
Prior proceeding
Prosecution filed Crl.Appeal No.216/2022 through the Public Prosecutor, Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, to set aside the said acquittal judgment dated 04.07.2022.¶35
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.5 (Commissioner of Police), by letter No.Legal-110S/2022 dated 11.08.2022, requested the Public Prosecutor, Metropolitan Sessions Judge, to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 04.07.2022; on that request respondent No.4 entrusted the matter further.¶35
Prior proceeding
The case was entrusted to Smt. K. Srivani, Additional Public Prosecutor Gr.I, IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad, who, due to ill-health, could not conduct the case diligently; petitioner then requested respondent No.1 to appoint Smt. Sailaja, Public Prosecutor, Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court, Nampally.¶38
Prior proceeding
Earlier Government Order, G.O.Rt.No.2379 dated 16.11.2022, governed the appointment; in I.A.No.1 of 2025 the petitioner prayed to recall it and appoint Grade-I Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Aravapalli Phani Kumar (VII Additional Sessions Judge Court, Nampally) through a separate G.O. of the Home Department.¶41