Dismissed¶38

V Surender Rao, Hyderabad v. Secy, Dept of Home, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Telangana HC6 Oct 2025WP/36916/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; writ petition; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of mandamus; Section 151 CPC; police inaction; non-investigation of FIR; FIR No. 811 of 2016 dated 2.10.2016; KPHB Colony Police Station; Cyberabad Commissionerate; final report; case classified 'undetected'; XIX Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad; dismissed as infructuous; rights reserved; no order as to costs; WPMP No. 45839 of 2017; N. Tukaramji; decision dated 06.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with the petitioner's rights reserved to avail appropriate remedies before the competent court if the cause of action still survives; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions (including WPMP No. 45839 of 2017) stood closed. ¶38

V Surender Rao, Hyderabad Vs Secy, Dept of Home… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not investigating FIR No. 811 of 2016, Dt. 2.10.2016, on the file of the 3rd respondent was illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, warranting a direction to investigate and initiate action against the accused. +1 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In view of the developments during the pendency of the writ petition, and in particular the fact that the final report has already been filed, the grievance of the petitioner stands effectively addressed and nothing further remains for adjudication in the present matter.

¶37

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous; however, the rights of the petitioner are reserved to avail appropriate remedies before the competent court if the cause of action still survives, and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (N. Tukaramji, J.), deciding W.P. No. 36916 of 2017 on 06.10.2025: a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to investigate FIR No. 811 of 2016 (Dt. 2.10.2016) on the file of the Station House Officer, KPHB Colony Police Station, Cyberabad, and to initiate action against the accused, was dismissed as infructuous. During the pendency of the petition, the crime was investigated and a final report was filed before the Court of the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, classifying the case as 'undetected'; the Court held that the petitioner's grievance stood effectively addressed and nothing further remained for adjudication. The petitioner's rights were reserved to avail appropriate remedies before the competent court if the cause of action still survived; there was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed. No precedent cases were cited and no separate opinions were expressed.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 36916 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.Surender Rao, Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 43^years, Occ Business,^Rl/o. Flat No. 303, Prashant Plaza, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, State of Telangana Cyberabad Commissionarate Near Old Mumbai Road, Khajaguda, Manikonda, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Station House Officer, KPHB Colony Police Station Cyberabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not investigating the criminal cases in FIR No. 811 of 2016, D1.2.10.2016 on the file of 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, and consequently direct the respondents to investigate the FIR and initiate action against the accused as per law.

¶16

I.A. NO: I OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 45839 OF 20171

¶17

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 investigate the criminal case in FIR No. 811 of 2016, Dt. 2.1O.2016 on the file of 3rd respondent and initiate action' against the accused as per law, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I

// ) / //

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJT

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.36916 OF 2017

¶25

OR.DER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is filcd with the following relief:

¶27

". ..to issue a Writ, ordcr or direction more^particularlv one in the nature of Wtit of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondcnts in not investigating the criminal cases in FIR No. 81'l of 2016, Dt.2.10.2016 on the file of 3d respondenr as itlegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, and consequendl' direct the respondents to investigate the FIR and initiate action against the accused as per lar.v-.. -."

¶28

Heard Mr. P. Vishnuvardhana Rcddv. Iearned couflsel for t}re petitiofler and Mr.M.Srinivas, lcarncd Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appe aring frrr rcspondcnt Nos. 1 to 3.

¶29

kamed counsel for the pedtioner submits that the present _ writ petition has been filcd challcnging the inaction of the respondeflt authoritics in not conductrng a proper investigation in Crime No. 811 of 2016, see king appropriatc dircctions.

¶30

I-earned Assistant^(ior, cr;rnrcnt I)leadcr fot Home, on the other hand, submits that the said crimc rvas duly investigated, and a final repon was filcd [>e forc thc^(.ourt of thc XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, ( )t1 11.04.2011 , classifving the case as

\ \

'undetected'. Hence, it is contended that dte gdevance raised by the

¶35

petitioner no longer survives for consideration.

¶36

I have perused the material placed on record.

¶37

In view o[ the developments that have occured during the pendency of this writ pcdrion, and particulady in light of the fact that the final report has already been Eied, it is evideot that the gricvancc o[ the petitioner stands effectively addressed. Consequcndy, n()thing lunhcr remains for' adjudkation in the Preseflt^mattcr.

¶38

Accordinglr,, rhis rvnt pctition is dismissed as infrucruous, howcvcr, thc rights of thc pctirioncr ate reserved to avail appropriatc rcmcdics befrrre thc competent courg if the cause o[ actir>n strll survrvcs.^'l hcrc shrill bc no order as to costs.

¶39

N'li-sccllancous l)ctitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

¶41

SD/. M. JAW DDY SISTANT GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to SRI P.VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY, SCAI€ oPUCI 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME,^High Court forthe T 1an? at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies PSK. BSR Ort&.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611012025

ORDER

WP.No.369'16 ot 2017

TIIE S f4
t
o
<)
2 I JAil 2o26 '-.- ,I|
,'-'-,1
*
,.,2-

¶47

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS