Bomma Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telangana

5. Bomma Srinivas, S/o Bomma Somayya Age. 49 Years, Occ. Government Employee(Teacher) Rl/o Mated Mandal. Thorrur District. Mahaboobabad, 6. Budarapu Srinivas, S/o Burarapu Lakshinarsiah Age .50 Years, Occ. Taylor Fl/o Mated (v), Mandal . Thorrur , District . Mahaboobabad,

7. Kurapati Somayya, S/o Kurapti Lachayya Age .60 Years, Occ. Sri Mahalakshmi Class store , R/o Thorrur (v) and Mandal . District . Mahaboobad, Telangana - 506'163.

8. Kondel Narasimharamulu, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Age.62 Years, occ Daily wage , Ri./o. Matedu(V), Thorrur (M), Mahaboobabad, Dist.

9. Budarapu Srinivas, S/o. Somaiah, Age.55 Years, Occ. Govt Employee, Rlio. Matedu(V), Thorrur (M), Mahaboobabad, Dist.

10. G.Venkateshwerlu, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Age. 60 Years, Occ. Business, Fi/o. Pathepauram(V), Mahaboobabad, Dist.

11. Mahamkali Devander, S/o Dharmaiah Age . Major , Occ.Business, Rl/o. Pathepauram(V), Mahaboobabad, Dist. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the inaction of the official respondents mainly the Respondent No. 4 Police in not registering the FIR basing on the complaint to 100 as well as written complaint Dated. 15,t212022 made by the petitioner against the unofficial respondents for their illegal tre:;passing pouring life threats on the petitioner inspite the suit is pending on the property is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of natural justice., CONSEOUENTLY Direct the official respondents NO. 2 to 4lo take action against the unofficial respondents while to register crime basing on the complaint Dated. 151212022. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the official respondents No. 2 to 4 to take action on the rr-.spondents No. 5 to 11 to take action against them while to register crrme basing on the complaint Daled. 151212022 and to do fair investigation. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. L. NARASIMHA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 1 1 :-- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONtsl.E SiIUJUSICE T. VINOD KUMA,R t hit Petutim No.1fi)25 of 2022 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and perused the record.

2. Despite the petitioner being directed to take out notice to respondent Nos. 5 to 11 and file proof of service, the same has not been filed till date. However, having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition and nature of /s involved, this Court is of the view that the matter can be proceeded with, without having the audience of the said respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though the petitioner has made a call to'Dial 100'complaining against the unofficial respondents for their illegal trespassing and pouring life threats on the petitioner, in spite of the suit is pending on the property before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, the respondents-a uthorittes have not taken any action on the I l aforesaid 'dial 100' call or on the written complaint dt.15.02.2022, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Dleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that on receiving the call 'dial 100'from the petitioner, the responder ts-a uthorities have made a GD entry and after causing preliminary enqutry, closed the said complaint by noting the same as "civil in natuie"; and that the petitioner was also informed of the action taken by sending communication.

5. I have taken note of the respective submissions rnade.

6. Having regard to the submission made as abo,re and since, it is now stated before this Court that a communication has been sent to the petitioner informing him of the action taken on the aftrementioned 'dial 100'call by closing the same as "civil in nature'; this C,turt is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ petition stands redressed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved b,y the said action taken by the respondents-authorities, it is open for him to avail further remedies under Cr.P.C./BNSS.

7. Granting liberty as noted hereinabove, the preselt Writ petition is -1 disposed of. No order as to costs. I //TRUE COPY// r\ \ \ "r3B;llY'#"d"*H i\ ',ir="r,oN oFFrcER *:,.!#ij i:i fl?:f.:y# o m e ) De pa rt m e n t, r n e s t\f e or r e r a n s a n a, Ihe !uperintendent of police, Mahaboobabad district. Lng 9v. Superinrendent of potice, rnoriuiioiviiion)"Jt rnorr.rr, Mahaboobabad district. Ttre Station House Officer, Thorrur p.S. Thorrur Mandat , Mahaboobabad district. 9n" 9Q to Sri G. L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to Gp for Home High Court for tn" btjte of iblarrgana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TJ LS ,/ HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 ORDER WP.No.10026 of 2022 eJ o .J t ri i 1r. j ,'4 o ;6 0 L J I 0i5 ( t' P c ^.y' -t' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS