The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and direct the respondents 3 to 5 to include the statements of the accused by way of recording fresh statement of accused and also the statement of 7 witnesses of settlement deed dated 12.11.2024 by considering a contents of settlement deed and making part of record phone call conversation , between the petitioner and respondent No.6 by way of fil ng additional charge sheet. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct t.he respondents 3 to 5 to consider and dispose the representation dated 13.01 .2025 ( posted on '17.01 .2025 and also 22.01.2025) pending disposat of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.SATISH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER a =7 ,/ HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6730 OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent No.5 to include the statement of the accused (respondent No.6) by recording his fresh statement and also the statements of seven witnesses of settlement deed, dated 12.11.2024, by considering the contents of the settlement deed, and make part of the record the conversion on phone between the petitioner and respondent tilo.6 by filing additional charge sheet in Crime No.511 of 2024 of Pahadishareef Police Station I

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he is the victim and de facto complainant in Crime No.Sl I of Pahadishareef Police Station. Respondent No.6 is the sole accused. Charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.4479 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial First Class lVlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the trial Court'). During investigation, respondent No.S brought the accused to the Police Station, conducted panchayat and compromise discussions took place in the Police Station in the presence of the petitioner and seven witnesses including the family members and concerned village elders of respondent No.6. Their statements were t 2 recorded and setllement deed was reduced into writing on 12.11.2024 i.e., exactly one day prior to filing of the charge sheet. lt is submitted that the petitioner provided phone call conversation between him and the accused which revealed that the accused has collected huge amounts from hinr by making false promises of providing job to him at DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organization). lt is submitted that such statement of the accused was not recorded and the phone call conversation provided by the petitioner was not made part ofthe charge sheet. d.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.S was hand in glove with the accused and, in orter to help the accused, respondent No.5 has conveniently chosen not to include the contents of the settlement deed daled 12.11.2024 and has not included the statements of seven witnesses of settlement deed. The petitioner was astonished to know the contents of the charge sheet. There are several defects in the charge sheet, thus, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

4. Learned r\ssistant Government Pleader for Home has taken preliminary objeclion to the maintainability of the petitioner. lt is submitted that the petitioner has effective alternative remedy before the trial Court by filing an application under Section 193 (8) of Bharatiya J Nagarik suraksha sanhita (BNSS)(section 1zo (g) of cr.p.c) seeking further investigation or by firing protest petition. without resorting to such remedy, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. ln the light of the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and considering that the petitioner has effective alternative remedy as stated above, this court is not incrined to pass any order in this writ petition.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage itself, granting riberty to the petitioner to approach the triar court by filing an application under Section 193 (8) BNSS (Section 173 (B) of Cr.P.C), seeking further investigation, or by filing prot"'"t petition; and on such application being filed by the petitioner, the Magistrate concerned shall pass orders thereon in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending i the writ petition stand closed- //TRUE COPY// SREE ASSISTANT E ISTRAR SD/- T.J SECTION FFICER ,] I To,

1. The Principal Secretary to Government Home Department Dr.BR Ambedkar State of Tdlangana, Tdlangana Secretariat Hyderabad TG \

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State Lakidikapul Hyderabad TG 3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Folice Commissionerate Vayupuri Colony Neredmet Beside Malkajgiri Court lVledchal-Malkajgiri District' TG

4. The Assistant commissioner of police, Rachakonda police commissionerate l\rlaheswa ram d ivision Ra nga reddy District TG

5. The Station Hou:;e Officer/lnspector of police, pahadishareef Rangareddy District TG /

6. One CC to SRI G.SAT|SH REDDY, Advocate. tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to GP I:OR HOIME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies, BSK o BSR I HIGH COURT DATED:05103111025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.6730 oli 2025 CC TODAY S1A TE o 1 S I 'ii!i .n$i Lr:r.u (--\ I .bi ,2.1 r o ,) .(i ii( I / DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS}TS