N.G. Aneesh Kumar v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Recording the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. C1 a\ Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shalt stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY// OSMAN ALI BAIG OFFICER To,
Judgment
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction) 13217 I THURSDAY, THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND ANp TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKAR,AMJI WRIT NO:39173 oF 20{6 Between: N.G. Aneesh Kumar,, S/o Sri Govindan, aged Muthoot Finance Ltd. Moosarambagh Branch, Badangpet, Nadergul, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 37 R/o years, Occ Branch Manager, House No. 21, GaYatri Hills, ...PETITIONER AND
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The Director Generat of Potice, Govt. of Telangana,, Saifabad Hyderabad 3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, - 4. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad., : 5. The Station House Officer, Ghatkesar Police Station, Ghatkesar. 6. The Station House Officer, L.B.Nagar Police Station,, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
The Station House Officer, Meerpet P.S. Cyberabad,, Hyderabad.
The Station House Officer, KPHB Colony P.S Cyberabad,, Hyderabad.
The Station House Officer, Kushaiggda Police Station,, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 lssue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of Respondents in recording the name of the Petitioner as habitua! off, ender in their records in respect of chain snatching / gold theft.under the guise of crimes registered as against the Petitioner along with deceased Kadavaltrri Shiva who involved in number of cases and availed loan and died in an encounter in respect of police cases of Crime No.970 of 2012 with L.B. Nagar Police, Crime No.299 ot2012:i, and Crime No. 462 of 2012 of Kushaiguda Police Station, in G.C. No. 658 of 2O1S of Ghatkesar'Police Station, in C.C. No.
212 ot 2015 and 593 of 2015 of KpHB Police and C.C. No. 658 ot 2015 of Meerpet P.S. and calling to the Police Stations regularly as illegal, arbitrary, motivated, unconstitutionat against taw as well as principles of naturaljustice and consequentially direct the Respondents to delete the name of the Petitioner in their records and not to harass unless and until any specific involvement of the Petitioner in any other crime. l.A. NO: I OF 2016(WPMP. NO:48271 OF 20161 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstarices stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents not to harass the Petitioner including calling to potice station without proper and sufficient evidence only on mere registration of cases with respondents No.4 to 9 along with deceased accused and borrower Kodavaturi shiva. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt K.B.RAMANNA DORA Gounsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER + '# f :ii * '+ ,* I f i+j # t ,+ * * * + * *, in, # 6 # ) o I t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ORDER: WRIT PETITION tloi,S9i73 OF ?0i6 This Writ Petition is filed under Article ZZA otconstitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...fo issue an appropriate writ or qder mqe particularty one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the ac, tion of Respodents in recording the name of the Petitioner as habituar offeder in their records in respect of chain snatching / gold theft under the gui* of crimes registered as againsf the Petitioner along with deceased Kadavaluri shiva who involved in number of cases and availed loan and died in an encounter in respect of Police cases of crime No g70 of 2012 with L B Nagar Police Crime No 2gg of 20,t2 and Crime No 462 of 2012 of Kushaiguda Police station in c c No 658 of 201s of Ghatkesar Police station in c c No 212 of 201s and 593 of 201s of KPHB Police and c c No 658 of 2015 of Mgerpet p s and cailing to the Police sfafibns regularly as illegal arbitrary motivated unconstitutional against law as well as ginciples of natural justice and consequentially direct the Respondenfs to derete the nime of the Petitioner in their records and not fo harass unless and untit any specific involvement of the Petitioner in any othq crime and pass such other order or orders...."
2. Heard Mr.K.B.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government pteader for Home appearing for respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in this Writ petition does not survive for adjudication and seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition as infructuous.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader takes no objection to the u -."8,-** I i I i. i, li. I,i I I ;I : i I I t f I : i i ,+ * ,'} * + # + # I 2
Operative part
Recording the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. C1 a\ Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shalt stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY// OSMAN ALI BAIG OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRI K.B.RAMANNA DORA, Advocate. [OpUCI 2. Two ccs to GP FoR HOME. Hioh court for the state of relangana at v Hyderabad.tOLrTl
3. Two CD Copies. BSK BS r, \, A \ \, HIGH COURT DATED:2110812025 T'l WP.No.39173 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS a .d + * i* * f .* .* s # t # ,t * i# * * :f * *r
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.