Sri B. Madhava Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri B. Madhava Reddy, S/o.Late Chandra^{Reddy, Age.} 80^years,Occ. Agriculture (Senior Citizen),^{Fi,/o.H.No.2-41} , Neememula Village, Ramannapeta Mandal, Yadadri District.

¶11

...'ET.T'ONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home^Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶15

The Station House Officer, PS Medipally, Rachakonda.

¶16

Sri D Hari Krishna, Sio. Bikshapathi Goud, Age. 44, Occ.^{Business,Fl/o.} Parvathipur Mandal, Medipally, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶17

Sri Srinivas Goud, S/o. Bikshapathi Goud, Age. Major, Occ. unknown^{to the} petitioner, Rl/o. Parvathipur Mandal, Medipally, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶18

...RESPONOENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmaybe} pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the non-iegistering the crime inspite of the compliant^{dt.02.03.2O25} against the Respondent No.4 to 0 as is by trespassing^{and damaging to the} property plot no.D/46 for admeasuring 360 sq.yards in sy.nos. 12, 13, 19,20 and 21 situated Salarjung Kacha Village, Parvathipur,^{Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga} Reddy District of compound wall and structures of the^{land on d1.01.03.2025at} about 5.00 PM and today i.e., 02.03.2025 at about^{11.30AM as illegaland} improper, in the interest of^justice.

¶20

,7

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 15l 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 Respondent No.3 to register the crime by protecting the petitioner property flat no.D/46 for admeasuring 360 sq.yards in sy.nos. 12, 13, 19, 20 & 21 situated salarjung Kacha Village, Parvathipur, Ghatkesar tr,tanoat, Ranga Reddy District, inspite of the compliant d1.02.O3.2025.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.BUCHI BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: -

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.726l of 2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and .learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3, and perused the record. With the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶29

Having regard to the nature of ils involved and the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition

¶30

The case of the petitioner in brief is that despite he approaching

¶31

the respondents and lodging a complaint on 02-03-2025, no action has been taken against the aforesaid complaint by registering FIR against the persons named in the complaint, which action of the respondents, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

Per contra,, leamed Govemment Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3 submits that the authorities on receiving the

¶33

z

¶34

aforesaid complaint from the petitioner, have made a GD entry on 02-03-2025 and took up preliminary enquiry.

¶35

Ldamed Govemment pleader would _^{further submit that after} causing enquiry, since the contents of the complaint relates to land dispute, which is civil in nature, the respondents have closed the complaint submitted by the petitioner as^.Civil in Nature,.

¶36

Leamed Government pleader would further submit that the notice of the action taken on the complaint was also sent to the petitioner vide communication dated 10-03-2025 by sending the same to the registered mobile number through onrine ccrNS portal and also by Registered post.

¶37

Leamed Government pleader further submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken on his complaint, the petitioner can avail the remedies open to him in law.

¶38

Having regard to the submissions made as above, since the respondent authorities claim to have taken action on the complaint made by the petitioner dated, 02-03-2025 by causing enquiry and thereafter having informed the petitioner of the said complaint being closed as it is in civil in nature, this Court is of the view that the petitioner $sJo wort our his remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik

¶39

; L

¶40

3

¶41

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the aforesaid communication, if he is aggrieved by such action

¶42

Though, on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that notice of action taken on the complaint of the petitioner has not been served on him, since the respondent authorities claim to have served the same on petitioner through registered mobile number given by the petitioner at the time of lodging complaint i.e. 99595581 I 8 and also having sent by registered post, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent authorities to collect a copy of the said communication, if he is in non-receipt of the same and take further action in accordance with law.

¶43