Dismissed

A.Srinivas Yadav, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Aug 2025WP/33512/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking action by Jagadgirigutta Police on the petitioner's complaint dated 20.08.2016 against private respondents. The State reported an FIR (No.502 of 2016) had been registered, investigated, and final report filed citing lack of evidence before the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur. The grievance having been redressed, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

A.Srinivas Yadav, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 33512 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

A.Srinivas Yadav, S/o late Sri Venataiah Yadav Aged about 34 years, Occ Business, R/o. Bakaram Jagir Village, Moinabad- Mandal Rariga Reddy Diiitti€t.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionarate Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Jagadgirigufta Police Station Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

Toutam Narasinga Rao, R:/o. H.No.4-34-158 Venkateswara Nagar (papireddy Nagar) Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District,

¶16

P.Bq=qhunandan, R/o.H.No.42-12911 Sri Geetha Sai Nilayam Road No.14,

¶17

^{!1$ foc.tlalmaTemple, Anjaiah NagarJagadgirigutta, Hyderabad - 500037.}

¶18

Chittimalla Satyanarayana @ Chandu, Rl/o.H.No.36-126, Devamma Basthi Jagadgirigutta, Qutbullapur Hyderabad - 500 037.

¶19

,..RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased{o-issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent in taking action against the respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein pursuant to the complaint dt.2008.2016 as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to forthwith act upon the complaint d1.20.08.2016 and take action against the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in accordance with law.

¶21

)

¶22

l.A. NO: I OF 2016(WPMP. NO:4 1392 0F 2016)

¶23

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the (,i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rrz y be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 herein to forthwith register a crin.i rar case against the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 pursuant to the compraint d1.20.08.2 r'r6, pending disposar of the main Writ Petition.

¶24

counsel for the Petitioner: sRr HANUMANTHA RAo GUD|F ATr (Nor PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: SRt R.LAXM|KAI,I^-H iEDDy, AGP FOR HOII E

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 6: -

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.33512 OF 2016

¶29

o RDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution^of lndia seeking^{the following relief}

¶31

"...fo lssue a writ order or direction more pafticularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the ld respondent in taking action against the respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein pursuant to the complaint dt. 20.08.2016 as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the ld^respondent herein to forthwith act upon the complaint dt.20.08.2016^{and take} action against the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in accordance^{with law,} and to^grant such other relief or reliefs..."

¶32

None appeared for the^petitioner

¶33

Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government^Pleader for Home, appearing^{on behalfof respondent Nos.'1 to 3, wouldsubmit} that, upon^{the complaintdated 20.08.2016,.a crimewas registeredas} F.l.R. No.⁵⁰² ot^{2016 on 20. 10.20'16 and after due investigation, final} report was filed endorsing^{'Lack of evidence'on the file of the learned} XXIV Metropolitan^{lvlagistrate,Miyapur, Kukatpally.}

¶34

Having considered the developments reported by the learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home} and^{as the contestof the} petitioner as to inaction of respondent No.3/Station House Officer,

\ .\

Jagadgirigutta^{PoliceStation,pursuantto the conr rlaint hasbeen} redressed,^{the causein this petition does not survive fo. ldjudication}

¶40

There 5 Accordingly,^{this Writ Petition is dismissed as ir ructuous}

¶41

shall be^{no order as to costs}

¶42

Pending^{miscellaneous applications' if any' shall} tand closed

¶43

l . Bhavani^Swamy A : ISTANT REGISTRAR

¶44

¶45

/TTRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶46

¶47

l?,ls33Jii$H-',s,uI,1'ffi#B'I.fJ'5At::ii""'L?Ey""i'"'

¶48

Hvderabad [OUT] J. Triro CD^CoPies PSK. TJ

PMc.

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10812025

ORDER

WP.No.33512 of 2016

rE SI,c r1:
( ? t)f
()
.J
0 /,J/0 il
;l
,,7
* a ,/
t pATa.'

¶55

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

P^d. d'l-t

A.Srinivas Yadav, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Srinivas Yadav, 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

N.Goverdhan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

B.Sai Ramakrishna and 2 Others Vs the State of Ts., Rep by Its Director General and 2 Others

R. Laxmi, Vs The State of Telangana

Chintakayala Venkatamma, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary

N Ashok Kumar Vs State of Tg,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,and 2

Kotanguri Rama Krishna Reddy Vs Sammeta Laxmi