Disposed¶39

Membi Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Apr 2025WP/7988/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ petition (mandamus) pressing for registration of FIR on complaint dated 02.03.2024 against unofficial respondents 5 and 6; police non-registration called illegal and arbitrary; Lalitha Kumari ruling invoked in the prayer; heard and disposed at admission stage with consent; notice to unofficial respondents deemed unnecessary; disposed in terms of this Court's earlier common order in W.P. No. 7159 of 2025 & batch; no costs. Telangana HC, 09.04.2025, Justice T. Vinod Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of for reasons alike and in terms of this Court's earlier common order in W.P. No. 7159 of 2025 & batch; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed; no order as to costs. ¶39

Membi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents-police were required to register an FIR on the petitioner's complaint dated 02.03.2024 seeking action against unofficial respondents 5 and 6, and whether their failure to do so was illegal and arbitrary such as to warrant a writ of mandamus directing registration of the FIR.

¶32

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the lis involved in the writ petition and the manner of disposal, notice to the unofficial respondent(s) was held not necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the joint submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by this Court's decision in W.P. No. 7159 of 2025 & batch, the Court disposed of the present writ petition for reasons alike and in terms of that earlier common order.

¶39

Key takeaways

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition was taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.obiter¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No. 7988 of 2024 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Special Original Jurisdiction), single-judge order by T. Vinod Kumar J., dated 09.04.2025: Petitioner Membi Srinivas sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-police to register an FIR on his complaint dated 02.03.2024 against unofficial respondents 5 (Kakativa NRI lnstitute of Medical Sciences Pvt Ltd) and 6 (Veeramalla Chandrajith Reddy), contending the non-registration highly illegal and arbitrary and invoking the apex-court ruling in Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. Heard and disposed of at admission stage with the consent of both sides; notice to the unofficial respondents held unnecessary; on the joint submission of counsel for the petitioner and the GP (Home) that the issue was squarely covered by this Court's earlier common order in W.P. No. 7159 of 2025 & batch, the writ petition was disposed of for reasons alike and in terms thereof; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

t^3166I

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^T.VINODKUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:7988 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Membi Srinivas, Sio. Late Yadagiri,^{aged60 years, Occ. Business,Rlio.H No'} 6-1-34613, Padmarao Nagar,^{New Boiguda Secunderabad}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep^{by its Principal Secretary, Home Department'} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Police,^{Warangal Commissionerate, Warangal}

¶13

a The Assistant Commissioner of Police,^{Hanumakonda Police Station,} Hanumakonda Hanumakonda^District

¶14

4 The Station House Officer, Hanumakonda^{Police Station, Hanumakonda} Hanumakonda District

¶15

E Kakativa NRI lnstitute of Medical Sciences^{Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing} Directrjr, Veerarnala iran^{KumariW/o. ChandrajithReddy,aged 48 y-ears,.} Occ: Business Rl/o. H No. 5-1-51,^{Kaviraj Nagai, KhammamRe€d office H} No. 2-7-187, Excise Colony, Subedari^{HanumakondaCity and District}

¶16

b Veeramalla Chandrajith Reddy,^{S/o. Aireddy Aged S3--years,Occ. Business,} Rlio. H No.5-1-51, Klviraj^{Nalar, Khammam Regd office H No.2-7-187,} Excise Colony, Subedari^{HanumakondaCity and District}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction^{more particularlyonein the nature of} writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the action of the respondents policein not} registering the FIR^{basing on the complaint daled o210312024of the petitioner} requesting to take^{actionagainstthe unofficial respondents 5 and 6, the} respondents^police not^{registering any FIR against the culpritsis highlyillegal,}

¶19

¶20

arbitrary and aga r r, the principles of natural justice and also ,,,iolation of apex court rulings helrl r Lalitha Kumari Vs. Govt. of Up and crs and as well as Cr.P.C and cons€q rr:ntly direct the respondents police to register the FIR basing on the complaint :r1' the petitioner dated o2lo3l2o24 against the unofficial respondents 5 arj i in the interest of justice.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition Lrr(i€^' section 151 cpc praying that in the cirlurnstances stated in the affidavit fi ed i' suppo( of the petition, the High court nay be pleased to direct the resporr<1e rts police to register the FIR basing on the r.;omplaint of the petitioner dated c2 ":ir12024 to take action against the unoffir;iat respondents 5 and 6, pending dis.p rsal of the main writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the P:t tioner: SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY

¶24

Counsel for the Res pondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Rr:s oondent Nos.5 and 6:--

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

I t

¶28

I I

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶30

W.P.No. 798a of 2o.24

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner in the^present Writ Petition^is that the respondents-authorities, basing^{on the complaint madeby} the petitioner on 02.O3.2024, are not^{initiating action by} registering the FIR against the unofhcial respondents,^{which action} of the respondents it is contended as highly^{illegal and arbitrary.}

¶33

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the^learned Government Pleader for Home appcaring for the^{officialrespondent,} and with the consent of the learncd counsel^{appearing for the} respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for^hearingand disposal at admission stage^.

¶34

Having regard to the nature of lis invoived in the^Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the^{view that} notice to unofficial respondent(s) is not necessary^{for adjudication} of the present Writ Petition.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner^and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing^{for the ofhcial} respondents submit that the issue involved in^the Writ^Petitionis squarely covered by a decision of ttris Court in^{WP.No.7159of 2025}

¶36

¶37

¶38

& batch, dt. ,,).03.2025, and the said common orde r u,cruld apply in all forc:e to I I : facts of the prcsent case.

¶39

5 Re < c r' 11q the same, for reasons arike as r,ve rr: s tatcd in the aforesaj.cl !!^-, : petitions, ulde W.p.Nos.7159 of 2 _t2.t & batch, dt. 10.()il.1lo: : and in terms thereof, the prescnt V/ri . petition is also dispc -.er, of. No order as to costs.

¶40

6 Oor-- ser, r rently, miscellaneous petitions, if. an1,, pending shal1

¶41

stand c:lo s ecl

¶42

SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA //TRUE COPY// l\ ?EPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶43

li ',/ sec:TtoN oFFtcER \ 1. The Princi ccretary, Home Department Secret}[iht, The I S':ate of Tela ngana, H derabad

¶44

To,

¶45

2 The Comm ssi rrer of police , Warangal Commissionerate \Varangal 3 The Assiste r t ,ommtssioner of Police , Hanumakonda Pol ice ljtation, Hanumakonda l.lanumakon da District

¶46