Disposed

Mohd Ifteqar Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Apr 2025WP/6485/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking a direction to register FIR on the petitioner's complaint regarding a Dargah dispute. Police had conducted a preliminary enquiry and closed the complaint as 'false' with notice to the petitioner. The Court held the petitioner should avail further remedies under the BNSS and disposed of the writ petition with liberty, without costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to pursue remedies under the BNSS against closure of complaint; no costs.

Mohd Ifteqar Hussain Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY^{OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6485 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd lfteqar Hussain, S/o Mohd.Mumtaz^{HussainAged aboutS-4.years, Occ} Muthawali Dargali Hzt.Syed Tajuddin^{Khaja Bagh Sarwar Rl/o Subhash} Nagar, Vemulawada Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep by^{its Principal Secretary, HomeDepartment,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Station i{ouse Officer, Vemulawada^{Police StationRajannaSircilla} District

¶14

Sri Raja Rajashewara Swamy^{Devasthanam,Rep by its ExecutiveOfficer} Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla DistrictThe Telangana

¶15

Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla DistrictThe Telangana^-State Wakf^{Board,Rep by its Chief ExecutiveOfficer} Nampally, Hyderabad

¶16

M.A.i'Jasii, S/o not known to the^{petitionerAge.Major,Occ.-Bu.sinessRl/o} Near Raja Rajeshwara Swamy^{Temple Vemulawada, Rajanna SircillaDistrict.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the^{constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ order or orders,^{particularly one in the nature of writ of} Mandamus declaring the action^{of the respondents in not registering the FIR and} not taking action^pursuant to the complaint^{dated 04-02-2023 is arbitrary and} illegal and consequently issue a^{directionto the respondent No.2 to 4 to take} immediate action against unofficial^{respondentand his henchmenin order to} save the life and^property of the^{Dargahby registering the FIR inview of} Judgment reported in2021^{(5) SCC 469 in the case of charan Singh Vs. State of} Maharastra and others and also^{Lalitha Kumari Judgment}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 issue a direction to the respondent No.2 to register the complaint dated 04-022023 forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHD ASIFUDDIN

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to2: GP FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH. SATISH KUMAR, SC

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN, SC FOR WAQF BOARD

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRt SYED HUSSAIN

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

ItE TONBIE SIIETG^{T. VII{OD KUMAR}

¶28

) )

¶29

Writ Pefitin lro5485 of^202!

¶30

Gm.:

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioner,learnedGovernment} Pleader for Home appearing^{for respondentNos.land 2, Sri Ch'Satish} Kumar, learned Standing^{Counselappearing for respondent No'3,} Sri Farhan Azam Khan^{learned Standing Counselappearingfor respondent} No.4 and Sri Syed Hussain,^{learnedcounsel appearingfor respondent No'5} and perused the record.

¶32

By the present Writ Petition,^{the petitioneris questioningthe action} of the respondents-authorities^{in not registering an FIR based on his} complaint dt.04.02.2023.

¶33

¶34

Per contra, learned Government^{Pleaderfor Home appearingon} behalf of respondent^{Nos.1 and 2 would submitthat the respondents-} authorities on receiving^{the aforesaid complaintand makingGD entry,} have caused^{preliminary enquiry and closedthe sameon17} '02'2023^as "false".

¶35

Learned Government^{Pleader further submits that on the} respondents-authcrities closing^{the complaint madeby the petitioner have} also issued handheld notice^{to the petitioner informing of the action taken;}

¶36

¶37

-f.

¶38

and that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid action taken, is required to avail further remedies provided under the Code.

¶39

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶40

Havinq regard to the submissions made as above, since, the respondents-authorities having acted on the compraint of the petitioner dt.04.02.2023 by causing preliminary enquiry and thereafter, closing the said complaint by noting as '.false,, on 17.02.2023, this Court is of the view that the petitioner shourd avair further remedies provided under the BNSS, if he is aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents.

¶41

7 Granting liberty as noted above, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs_

¶42

B. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶43

¶44

SD/.A.^JAYASREE S$S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

1 One CC to^{SRl. MOHD ASIFUDDIN' Adv-ocate [OPUCI} i i'j')I dd.i,-cp^{Fon Hoil'i ln'gh co"t for the-Stateot relansanaat} Hvderabad [OUTI 3 iji,:,'bCi;^{5 Rr. bveoHUSSAIN' Advoc-qle.IIJPUC]} i 5ii";c i;^{5Ri. SnrtsnKUMAR'sc [oP-uc]} ^ 5. one cc^{to sRl FARHii'iX#M'kiANi'sC rbR wnorBoARD [oPUc]} 6. Two CD^CoPies

B M Lffio _4 //\

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110412025

1He SIA I6:
(
/, o
,Jo ? 3 JUl,l 2U5 l
t
,)A".. o

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No.6485 of 2023

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

Mohd Ifteqar Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Ifteqar Hussain 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

Konda Venkata Narasimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Devakishan Ladda Vs The State of Telangana

Dosali Kalavathamma Vs The State of Telangana

Errabelli Vijay Kumar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mary Grace Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

My Cafe Latte Vs The State of Telangana