Disposed¶40

Mary Grace Educational Society v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Apr 2025WP/6941/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court writ petition (WP 6941/2025, decided 21-04-2025, T. Vinod Kumar J) on non-registration of FIR: complaint dt.09.02.2025 to SHO, Toopran Police Station, Medak; GD entry and preliminary enquiry; complaint closed 05.03.2025 as 'civil in nature'; petitioner informed via Petition Management System (PMS); prayer under Article 226 for mandamus invoking Articles 14, 19, 21; interim relief application under S.151 CPC; unofficial respondent Shivaranjani; notice to unofficial respondent held unnecessary; grievance held redressed; writ disposed of without costs with liberty to pursue further remedies; miscellaneous petitions closed; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Notice to the unofficial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition. ¶31

Mary Grace Educational Society Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents-authorities' failure to register an FIR on the petitioner's complaint dt.09.02.2025 against the unofficial respondent and others is illegal and arbitrary. +1 more

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Notice to the unofficial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition.

¶31

Key takeaways

Since a communication through PMS had already been sent to the petitioner informing of the action taken on the complaint (closed as 'civil in nature'), the Court considered the petitioner's grievance in the writ petition as redressed.ratio¶39
If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents-authorities, it is open to the petitioner to avail further remedies (the specific remedy referred to is not legible in the source).obiter¶39
Consequent upon disposal of the writ petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 6941 of 2025, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Special Original Jurisdiction), decided 21-04-2025 by T. Vinod Kumar J. An educational society (society name and registration particulars illegible in source), rep. by Secretary Thatipamula Raju, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 (invoking Articles 14, 19 and 21) directing Respondent No. 4, the Station House Officer, Toopran Police Station, Medak, to register an FIR on its complaint dt.09.02.2025 against unofficial respondent Shivaranjani and others, contending the non-registration illegal and arbitrary; an interim application under S.151 CPC sought the same relief pending disposal. The Government Pleader for Home submitted that on receipt of the complaint a GD entry was made, a preliminary enquiry was caused, and the complaint was closed on 05.03.2025 as 'civil in nature', the petitioner being informed of the action taken through the Petition Management System (PMS). Holding that notice to the unofficial respondent was unnecessary, and viewing the grievance as redressed by the PMS communication, the Court disposed of the writ petition without costs (per the disposal stamp), while leaving it open to the petitioner to avail further remedies if aggrieved; pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed. No precedent was cited.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY,THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOI.'SAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WR]T PETITION NO: 6941 0F 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

M"ry^.9q"q ^educational 9q"i"ty,^{Reg.No.37o7l1997,H.No.8-2-7} Bt2,^ptot Lo 1.8/A,^{Sri Sai Enctave, Otd Bowenpalty, Hyderabad,nep} ei iG S-ti'reidry Thatipamula Raju.

¶10

..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The State of Telanoana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Department of Home, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director General olpolice, Telangana State at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Superintendent of^police, Medakbistrict. Medak.

¶15

The Station House fficer, Toopran police Siation, Medak District.

¶16

Shivaranjani, Wo. B ghandralhaker_Reddy (Late), nged aboiit 51 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o. D Block, 702, Rainbow'vista,' Xr"taipittlr- nyOeiaOaOl Telangana State.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

! -1 ; i :

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.4 in not registering the FlR, inspite of the complaint d1.o9.02.2025 given the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and also violation of Articlesl4, 19 and 21 of constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No. 4 to register the First lnformation Report on the basis of the complaint dt.o9.02.2025 of the petitioner and conduct the enquiry as per the law

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF ?!,2:r_

¶21

Petitio n u nrlr:r s ection^{1 51 CPC praying that in the ()ircurlstances stated} in the affidavit filec in support^{of the petition, the High cou.t mi;ty be pleasedto} direct the^{Rr:spcrrclent No.2 to 4 to register the First lnforrnatic,nReport on the} basis of the cc,nrplaint^{dt.og.o2.2o25 of the petitioner and condur:t the enquiryas} per the law zrn J litrerty,^pending disposal^{of the mainWrit Petitior}

¶22

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl. G. SATISH BABU}

¶23

Counsel for the Rlespondent^{Nos. 'l to4:GP FOR HOME}

¶24

Counsel for the flespondent^{No.S: Mr. BHARADWAJREDDY MOTHE} The Court rrrade lhe^{following:ORDER}

¶25

t i : !i I

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KT'MAR

¶27

trI.P.No 6941 of 2Q25

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ petition is that basing on the complaint made by the petition er dt.O9.O2.2O2S, the respondents-authorities are not initiating action by registering FIR against the unollicial respondent herein and others, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly i egal and arbitrary.

¶30

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for I{ome appearing for the officiat respondents, and perused the record.

¶31

Having regard to the manner of disposal of rhe Writ petition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view, that notice to unoflicial respondent is not neccssan. ft,r adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶32

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader. appearing for official responclents submits that the respondents-authorities on receiving thc complaint madc by the petitioner, have made a GD entry and after causing preliminary enquiry, closed the said complaint on O5.03.2025 by noting the same as "civil in nature,,; ancl that thc petitioner was

"r,-:

I ti

I I i 1 i

also inforrl,:i^{of the actiontaken by sendingcommr'rnicatlon} through^{l)etiti() 1 ManagementSystem(PMS)'}

¶38

I have^{ti1{cnnote of the respectivesubmissionsmacle'}

¶39

HavrnSl^{r:ga:dto the submissionmade as abor'<:an:l since' it} is now^s -ale^{rl lrelorethis Courtthat a communication throughPMS} has alreach^{lrt:en sent to the petitioner informingas to l.he action} taken otr^{iri r)r)mF)laintof closing the same as "civil in nature"' this} Court ir;^{11 '111' rrig"v that the grievanceof the pel itiorrer in the} present^{.l'ril l)cLir ion standsredressed'However' if the petitioner} is aggrievr'3^{trv the said actiontaken byth6; 1s5'pondents-} authori^{:ii s . Lt rs open ior the petitionerto avail furtherremedies} under^{Or F'.(l} i^UI{SS-