Dismissed

Syed Anwar, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC2 Sept 2025WP/41106/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ directing police protection for their land and investigation of an FIR referred to police, alleging respondents insisted on out-of-court settlement. The court recorded that investigation was completed and a final report under Section 173 CrPC filed, closing the case as civil in nature, and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.

What the court decided

AI extract

Syed Anwar, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

[³⁴⁸⁶ ]

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:41106 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

1-, Syed Anwar, S/o Late Syed Moinuddin, Aged 68 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rio Chinna Gottimukkula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶9

2 Syed Rasool, S/o Late Syed Moinuddin, Aged 65 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rio Chinna Gottimukkula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶10

Syed Khaja Miya, Sio Late Syed Moinuddin, Aged 62 Years, Occ Agriculture,

¶11

R/o Chinna Gottimukkula Village, Shivampet Mandal, ,"Or*

¶12

?]B,lil,ONERS

¶13

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, T-Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad - 500 022.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Sangareddy, Medak Diskict.

¶16

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Toopran Sub-Division, Toopran, Medak District.

¶17

The Station House Officer, P.S. Shivampet, Shivampet, Medak District.

¶18

Syed lbraheem, S/o Late Syed Haneef, Aged 75 Years, Occ Agriculture, R:/o Chinna Gottimukkula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶19

Syed Sadath, S/o Late Syed Haneef, Aged 65 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rio Chinna Gottimukkula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶20

Syed Akbar, S/o Late Syed Haneef, Aged 62 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rio Chinna Gottimukkula Village, Shivampet Arlandal,

¶21

Syed Maqbool, S/o Late Syed Haneef, Aged 48 Years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Chinna Gottimui<kula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶22

Syed Habeeb, S/o Syed lbraheem, Aged 40 Years, Occ Agricutture, Rio Chinna Gottimukkula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶23

10.Syed Shafi, S/o Syed lbraheem, Aged 35 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rio Chinna Gottimukkula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶24

1 1 . Syed Gaffer, Sio Syed Sadath, Aged 30 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rio Chinna Gottimukkula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

¶25

'12.Syed Ghani, S/o Syed Sadath, Aged 35 Years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o Chinna GottimukkulaVillage, ShivampetMandal, Medak District.

¶26

...RESpONDENTS

¶27

. Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in

¶28

not providing protection to the life and property of the Petitioners and insisting for settlement as dictated by them with the Unofficial Respondents 5 to 12 outside the Court, by ignoring the Court Orderdated 0410812015^passed in lA No.23Bl2015 in OS No.32l2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Medak, and not conducting investigation in FIR No.104/2015 as referred by the JFCM (Special.Mobile) Court, as illegal, void, violative of^principles of natural^justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300-,4 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents 2 to 4 to^provide Police Protection to the Petitioners life and Agricultural Lands total admeasuring Ac.2-29 Gts., situated at Chinna Goftimukkula Village of Shivampet Mandal in Medak District, covered by the Court Order dated 0410812015^passed in lA No.238/2015 in OS No.32l2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Medak.

¶29

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 53044 OF 2015)

¶30

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 2 to 4 to provide protection to the Petitioners' life and Agricultural Lands total Ac.2-29 Gts., situated at Chinna Gottimukkula Village of Shivampet Mandal, in Medak District, covered by the Court Order dated 0410812015 passed in lA No.23Bl2015 in OS No.3212015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Medak, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶31

Counsel-for the Petitioners: SRI G.VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SRI SRIDHAR BHUVANAGIRI, AGP FOR HOME

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 TO 12: -

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

I I

¶35

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.411O6 of 2O15

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners to declare the action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in not providing protection to the life and property of the petitioners and insisting or settlement as dictated by them with the Unoflicial Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 outside the Court duly igrroring the Court order dated 04.O8.20 15 passed in I.A.No.238 of 2015 in O.S.No.32 of 2015 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Medak and not conducting investigation in FIR No.1O4/2015 as referred by the JFCM (Special Mobile) Court, as illegal in violation of principles of natural justice besides being in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 30O-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to provide Police Protection to the petitioners.

¶39

( t

¶40

Heard Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶41

The counter is hled on behalf of the respondent No.3, who has stated that pursualt to the registration of the Crime No.1O4

¶42

)

¶43

l -,i

¶44

of 2015, the police had already conducted the investigation. After conducting the investigation, a final report under Section 173 of CRPC was also {iled before the learned JFCM at Narsapur, whereby it has been reported that the dispute is Civil in nature and accordingly, the said case was closed as "Civil in nature".

¶45

In view of the above, the cause in the Writ Petition no longer survives for adjudication. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if ary, shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶48

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

SECTION OFFICER To 1 One CC to SRI G.VENKAT REDDY,^Advoca teloPUCj 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME,^{High Courtfor} the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3 Two CD CoPies PSK. PSK (]

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912025

ORDER

WP.No.41106 of 2015

1 FIE J
(
Itoo
ii 0 7 l- l- t ? tl7<br>

¶57

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

¶59

C^{oPr e.l}

¶60

lt gL: 3o^'\2h

Syed Anwar, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Syed Anwar, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Botumanchi Manohara, Warangal Dist Vs Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyd and 2 Others

Sunke Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana, rept. by Principal Secretary-

Shaik Sadiq, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Arshia Mohammad, W/o Abdul Subhan, Vs The State of Telangana Rep.by The Priniciple Secretary

P. Parasmal Jain Vs The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Basheerbagh

Dr. Anita Chandna, Vs The State of Telangana