Dismissed

Chintala Surender, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Oct 2025WP/41908/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct police authorities to register a complaint. The court held that since the police had registered a case (Crime No.495 of 2017) and submitted a final report classifying it as false, nothing further subsisted for deliberation. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the Writ Petition as infructuous without costs.

Chintala Surender, Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND ANO TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N,TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 41908 OF 2017

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Chintala Surender, S/o. Apparao, Aged 55 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o.6-139, VDOs colony, Khammam, Opp. TNGOs Function hall, Khammam, Khammam District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Superintendent of police, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶13

The Station House Officer, ll Town Police Station, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶14

4- Venepalli Sathyanarana @ Satish, S/o. Chander Rao, age 42 years, Occ Contractor, Rl/o. Srinagar Colony, Kodad Town, Nalgonda District ( presently Suryapet District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of 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 dii'ection more padicularly one in the nature of [\4andamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent police in not registering the crime against the 4th respondent for the offences under sectron 307 and 420 of IPC inspire of the petitioners complaint dt. 07-1 1-2017, acknowledged the same on 14-11-2017 is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19 and 21 o'f Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondent police to register the crime against the 4th respondent and take necessary action in accordance with lau,r.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 51974 OF 2017

¶18

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

¶19

the iespondent police to register the crime against the 4th respondent under sections 307 & 420 of IPC pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'1 TO 3: SRI M.SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.41908 ot 2017

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

¶26

"...fo lssue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent police in not registering the crime against the 4th respondent for the offences under section 307 and 420 of IPC inspite of the petilioners complaint dated 07-1 1 -2017, acknowledged the same on 1 4-1 1-2017 is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 1 4, 19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently to direcl the respondent police to register the crime against the 4th respondent and take necessary action in accordance with law and to pass....."

¶27

None for the petitioner

¶28

3 Heard t\Ar.t/.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader

¶29

for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶30

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that basing on the representation of the petitioner dated 07.11.2017 , Crime No.495 of 2017 has been registered and after due investigation, final report was field on 28.02.2018 before the learned I Additional Judicial l\4agistrate of First Class, Khammam referring the matter as 'false'. Thus, nothing further subsist in this petition for consideration.

¶31

I have perused the materials on record

¶32

¶33

Having regard to the^prayer that^{the report filed by the} petitioner has not been acted upon by^{the respondents/police} authorities and the developments^{reported by the learned Assistant} Government Pleader, it is evident^{that the respondents/police} authorities have effectively^{addressedthe grievanceofthe} petitioner. ln the circumstances, nothing further survives^{in this} matter for deliberation.^{Accordingly,this Writ Petitionis dismissed} as infructuous. There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶34

lViscellaneous Petitions,^pending if any, shall^{stand closed}

¶35

SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASS TANT REGISTRAR

¶36

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

f'r^{SECTION OFFICER}

¶39

1 One CC to SRI l,4UlMltlANENl SRINIVASA RAO, A{vocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUT] 3 Two CD Copies PSK. ,r-l ] KS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1311012025

ORDER

WP.No.41908 of 2017

( Oi\ liiE S14
?2
o
2 3 llLfl 2{l2
)
*
t
PATC

¶45

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

(C)^t'"?"4 -4,1o' Ir .)->t, Dtr

Chintala Surender, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintala Surender, 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

G. Nagi Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary

Kothapalli Hari Krishna,Vijayawada,a.P. Vs the State of Ts.,Home,Hyderabad, and 14 Otrs.

K.Lalitha, Vs The State of Telangana

Shaganti Narsaiah Vs State of Telangana

Mammal Gangadhar S/o Pothanna, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep by Principal Secretary

Thammishetty Ramulu Vs Bollam Manjula