High Court · 2025

P.Sridhar, S/o. Latefiamchander, Aged about 38 Years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.No.'18-2-60/2, Nagulabanda, Falaknuma, Ambedkar Nagar' Charminar, Hyderabad District, ...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Falaknuma, Hyderabad Commissinoerate, Hyderabad.

2. The Director Geneial of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad 3. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Commissinoerate, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy Commissionei of Police, South Zone' Hyderabad 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Commissinoerate, 6. The Station H6use Officer, Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad. 7. Baindla Hariki, W/o. P.Sridhar Aged about .15 Years, Occ Housewife, Rl/o. 8. Baindla Ramcha-nder, S/o. Not Known, Aged about 52 Years, Occ- Pvt. 9. Baihdl; Laxmi, Wo. Ramchander, Aged about 45 Years Occ Housewife, -Balaiah, Aged about 24 Years' Occ. Driver, R/o. Employee, Rl/o. Kulkacherla Village and Mandal, Vikarabad D strict. R/o. Kulkacherla Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District Kulkacharla Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District

10. Baindla Nani, S/o. Kulkacherla Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District. _

12. Baindla lnapur Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District. lbbanur Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District R/o. lnapur Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District. 'l 1. Baindla Balaiah, S/o. Not Known, Aged about 47 Yearc' Occ. Pvt. Employee, 'Padma,"Wlo. Balaiah, Aged about 45 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o' 13.Ramulu, S/"o. Not Kown, Aged about 42 Years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Ryo' 'l4.Suguna, W/6. Ramulu, Aged about 41 Years' Occ Teacher' R/o lbbanur t S Shaikjr, S/o. Not Known, Aged abou. 40 Years, Occ' Pvt' Employee' Rl/o' 16 Radha. Wo. Ramchander, Aged about 42 Years, Occ' RMP Doctor, R/o' t z Cithnamma, W/6. Ramchandei, Aged about 65 Years, Occ llousewife, Rl/o' 18 Viiav Kumar. S/oINot Known. Aqed about 55 Years. Occ Ex-Vice - Annaram Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District Kulkacherla Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District. Kulkacherla Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District. Villbge, Kulkacheda Mandal, Vikarabad District. Ctiairperson, Rt/o. Mominpet Vill5ge, Kulkacherla tt4andal. Vrkarabad District.

19. Polepally l/L ke:;h, S/o. Polepally Ramulu, Aged about 3C Ye'a rs' Occ Pvt' Empiove,r r /o. H.No.3-81/2. S.C.Colony, Chllapur Villag': Kt'lkacherla lvlandal \/ I ;rraf,ad District. ...IIES'ONDENTS Petitio 1 u rr er Article 226 of the constitution of lndia l)raying that in the circumstances s t;ited in the affidavit filed therewith, the lligh Court may be pleased to issr-l( I n appropriate writ, order or direction mor-' pa rticularly one in ihe nature ot r/V. t rrf l\4andamus declaring the action of the f let,;pondent No. in non-following th,: tro yisions of the criminal Procedure codrl Se.:tion 153 (4) of Cr.p.C. nor i;er:ri,rr 124 of BNSS Act and refused to receive the r;omplaint of the Petitioner date,l I 2.11.2024 and non-initiating to register the F. r.R. against the Respondent No'; 7 1o 19 who hatched a plan to extract th: rnoney from the Petrtioner ani 1r:spas;sed into the house of the Petitioner anl berat the Petitioner and demanding r f pay an amount of Rs.30.00 Lakhs anrl threatening and t,etitioner on the name of criminal case. is illegal, arbitrary, blackmailing th€ unco n stitutiorr a e rrcj violation of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 300-F, ol. constitution of lndia and als o \ i: latir)n of Principles of Natural Justice and conrsequently direct the Responcenl Jo. 6 to register the F.l.R. basing on ttre c':mplaint of the Petitjoner datec 1 ?.11.2024 by following the criminal Proce<lurc' code Section 154 (3) of Cr.P () nor SectionlT4 of BNSS Act basing and tak': rrecessary action against the Re! I) )nclent Nos. 7 to 19 who trespassed into th3 house of the Petitioner with J t-;oc al elements and beat the Petitioner indisr;rirninately pending disposal ol tf e \// t P :titron lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petitror Lr I -er liection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the aff idavit f i1r:,1 r., ' rrpon of the petition, the High Court rna',' be pleased to direct the Re,sor n lent No.6 to register the F.l.R. basing on tl^e :)omplaint of the Petitioner datcd 1 2 11'2024 by following the criminal Proceriurr: code Section 154 (3) of Cr F ( ) nor' Section 174 of BNSS Act basing and take necessary action against the Ro: prrdent Nos. 7 to 19 who trespassed into th3 house of the Petitroner wrth .r r ;ocral elements and beat the Petitioner ind iscrirrrinately pending disposal of tf e' V/'t P,:tition Counsel for thr-' [),-.titioner: SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for thL, [?,:spondent Nos. 1to6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Fesl;ondent Nos.7to19:-_ The Court made lrre lollowing: ORDER HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITI ON No.2853 0F 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.6 - Station House officer, Falaknuma Police Station, in not entertaining his complaint daled 12'11'2O24 under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently prayed for appropriate reliefs.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his marriage was performed with respondent No.7 on 23.11.2023 as per Hindu Rights and Customs. Soon after the marriage, disputes arose between him and respondent No.7. Respondent No.7, without informing the petitioner's family, left the company of the petitioner' lt is stated that the caste eldersandwell.wishersofthepetitionerfamilymadeeffortsforreunion of the petitioner and respondent No.7.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of respondent No.7 and her family members, the mediation talks have failed and, taking advantage of the same and to compel him to accept the terms and conditions of respondent No'7, respondent No.7 also lodged a complaint on the file of Falaknuma Police Station and the I t I / 2 same \ryas registered as Crime No.63 of 2024 for the olTences under Sections /()jl-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prchitrition Act. 4 . lleard earned counsel for the petitioner and le arned Assistant Governme ri' Pl:ader for Home appearing for the respondr,lnt police. 5 [_ e a,ne,l counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is interest,:C in leading happy matrimonial life with resprondent No.7 and he hia ; ;ubmitted a representation/complaint reque rsting the police to refer tt'e : a ser for conciliation to the mediation centre 6 l' ; areful examination of the complaint subm itted by the petitioner r: vezrls that there are matrimonial disputes l:etween the petitioner lr d respondent No.7. ln view of serious tanrily disputes betweer I.l . petitioner and respondent No.7, this Courl is; not inclined to grant a n / elit:f in this writ petition.

7. i\cc-^rlin;ly, the writ petition is dismissed. lf the petitioner has any grie,van I ? on the complaint lodged by him, he is at liherty to avail .enredies as per law including the fil ngt of private approprial€ complainl L r: ore. the Magistrate concerned. No order as to costs. As ; _rr qu,:l thereto, miscellaneous applications. f any, pending in the wr'it pr titior stand closed. I I I I I I ; I I //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 3 GJPM 9n" 9Q 1 r : tt IiAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate Two CC; r r . ifr r CR HOIVE ,High Court foithe Hyderaba, r ,llll TwoCDt,r,, BIM SD/.N. SRIHARI GISTRAR i$Tl"'"'*' ; I \rbpucr State of Telan.yana sEcTloN OFFICER HIGH Crllgl1, DATED:0 il\ZtzO2S ORDER WP.No 2tli3 of 2025 f sc( J30 I I 1r HI - :-:: s . i L,.; f 3 .r. t'i 7l]2l ,:. ,,.. ,- 1ir,C a) i;- :,- -,' - ,4 2 a t DISMISSIN(J THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I i ./