High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring-the action of the Respondent No:3 & 4 in not registering the FIR-against the complainurepresentations Dt. 27to1l2o2s, 05/0212025 and 14to2r2025 to rodge a formar FrR for the purpose of banking needs' within prescribed time as per cr.p.c. is iregar, arbitrary and in vioration of natural justice and consequenry direct the 4th Respondent herein to register the FIR against the petitioner's ComplainURepresentations Dt. 2ltO1t2O2S, 0510212025 and 1 41O2t2025 forthwith. i ,/' |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the'affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th Respondent herein to register the FIR agains: the Petitioner's Complaint/Representations Dt.271O112025, OSl02l2O25 and 14iO212025 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMAD SHAHABUDDIN Counsel forthe Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER I i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICD T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 7392 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned Counsei for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for reipondent Nos. 1 to 4 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had approached the respondents-authoritles initially on 27 .O1.2O25 to lodge a complaint regarding missing of property documents, however as advised by the said authorities, he had lodged the aforesaid complaint, through mee-seva by paying requisite fee.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter when he had approached the 4tn respondent-authorities, the authorities are refusing to take the complaint of the petitioner and register a case of 'missing of original property documents'.

4. The petitioner a-lso contends that as the respondents- authorities refused to receive the copies of the documents, whose originals were lost, for which a complaint is sought to be made by the petitioner, he had sent undertaking letter though registered post on O5.O2 -2025 and 14.O2.2O25, aod in spite of the same, the I I I i 2 respondents authorities have not registered a case til1 date regarding loss of original documents, which action it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

5. Per contra,learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that the application made by the petitioner through mee-seva portal on 27.O1.2025' was received on

28.01.2025, and the same has been rejected by the authorities on o 1.03.2025.

6. I have taken note of the respective submissions made' Though it is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute

7. owner of the property under a Will Deed, of which original documents are lost, it is to be noted that the petitioner under the Will Deed executed by late Chanda Devi Agarwal, is having only 25%o share in lhe estate of late Chanda Devi, while thr:re are other claimants to the remaining share of 7 5o/o.

8. Further, though the petitioner claims of having lost the original Will Deed, it is not shown to this Court as to how the petitioner came into possession of the original Wil1, while he being only entitled to 25o/o share and there being other co-shares of the property belonging to late Chanda Devi. Further, it is also not shown to this Court that the petitioner along with other co-sharers 3 having approached the respondents-authorities and submitting a representation/complaint regarding missing of original documents, for the authorities to take cognizance of the same by registered a crime/ FIR.

9. Since, the petitioner did not approach the authorities along with other co-sharers/owners of the property belonging to late Chanda Devi, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot claim himself to be the absolute owner of the property under the Will Deed executed .by late Chanda Devi and the original documents_ having been lost. If only the petitioner along with other co-sharers of the estate of late Chanda Devi under the Will Deed approach the respondents-authorities and submit a representation/complaint, the authorities are required to consider the same and issue necessary certificate of '1oss of original documents'after conducting enquiry into the matter.

10. Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, lf any, pending shall stand closed AS IS SD/-N, SRIHARI NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t) 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department'.Dr' B' R' Ambedkar Secretariat ' grilOing", Saifabad, Siate of Telangana at Hyderabad' 2. The Director Generaiof Police, Foithe State Of Telangana Office of CTION OFFTCER Directorate, HYderabad. \ To / \ HYderabad. Hills, HYderabad.

3.TheAsst.CommissionerofPolice,P.S.BanjaraHills,RoadNo'3,Banjara +. in" Stjti"" House Officer, P S'Banjara Hills' Road No'3' Baniara Hills' s. Oi'r"-C-C to SRI MOHAMMAD SHAHABUDDIN' Advocate [OPUCI ;. i;; ccs to Gp FoR ioME, High court for the State of relangana at 7. Two CD CoPies HYderabad. [OUT] i3 Yt- i l l-\ HIGH COURT I I DATED:1210312025 t I ORDER WP.No.7392 of 2025 ( e' J o -) ( 111E S L4 r(r 11 APN TM z DE'PATcs DISPOSING I3F THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. n ($- l2-r- 3