The High Court · 2025

1. T.Srinu, S/o J. Vehnkat_81o..4gg9 about 52 years, Occ: business, R/o Ftat No. 503, H.No. 1-9-312t5t2t1- Krishnta Nr* -A-r;",6;"d;'ffi;;'"r,tA;: 2. D. Satish _Kumar, S/o, late D Ranga Reddy Aged about 4g years, Occ. Business, No 4o2, park Meridran Api's. w;iiirari6opaity, stcunoLilbio-ril 3. Ch. Surender Reddv. S/o Ch. Narsr Reddy Aged about 43 years, Occ. -Ei'n6"-j, Pusiness, No 1 1 -1 i-2s1 u, r"ri,gabirsh;;toffi y, n.k. Fu[m,, Kothapet, Hyderabad. " No.7-1-27789a, Sai Niketan. S n Cobny. HiaLiaOaA_eA.

4. K. Anil Kumar, S/o late K. Rajaiah,Aged about 60 years, Occ. Doc{or, R/o H. 5. V. NagarajaKumari. Wo_Dr V GopataKrishnaiah Aged about 65 years, Occ. housewife, R/o Ftar No 401, Laxmr Krishna 4p1", filyan N;ij;r; fifiL?;;; 38. 6. S. Sripal Reddy, S/o. tate S .Raghav Reddy Aged about 45 years, Occ. 7. P. Praveen Kumar. S/o p. Hanumantha Reddy Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o 1 8-5 1, Subhash t ta gi,. Uppaii'ydeiabad_39. employee, Rto 2OBl1 3 R I, Saidabad cotony, Hy'derabad. ...PET!TIONERS AND uecretaflat, Hyderabad 1 lt-L,:P^:ll9_l?!qr"l Rep by rts pflncipatsecretary, Home Departnrent, 2 The commissioner of porice, cyberabad commissionerate, R.R. District. 3. The Asst Commissioner of police, Medchal Division, petbasheerabad. 4. The Station House officer, porice Station Medchar, Medchal, R.R. District. 5. P. Suresh P. Vishwanatham, Aged about 5.1 years, Occ: Business, FUo Flat ' '-' No. 151, Cholas Residency. Valavi Nagar, Khrkhana, SecunOe-ri-tiaO.- O !tl9 !19!9ry fttoys Steets.Lrd . Rep by its Chairman and Mg Director, Sri V.V Naidu S/o V. Malakonda Naidu Aged about 72 years. ...RESPONDENTS i I a I I I : I Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit rirlo it "i"*itn, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mrrdr.;; -d;"i"iing tt " action of the officiat respondents in not takino^any action against the ftesponOent No. 5 inspite of registering the FrR t'uo. 6z oi zorc aaiea i'r-oii-o.8 and nor protectinq the petitioners' their rives and. properries l".pit.- oi th" R;;p*;I;;'tol''s"1" continuously usinq criminar force' to oi.porsl-r. tie petitioners with the herp of fabricated documents with intention 1o-g;;-;;;r;;rty rn Survey No. 833/AA Ac l-1,? st andAcl-25 gts situated at MJocnar ,iri"g!;"0 Mandat, R R District as is illegal, arbitrary, in vioration or princiftes oi justice and in vioration of Articles, 14, 21 and 300-4 of the constrtltion ot r'ijir""no consequenry direct the official respondents to take action againsi i." n"tp"ro.nt No. 5 for trespassing and grabbing the properties of rhe p;titio;e;;r;J;;;,"g construction in respect or property in survey No. 833/AA AL r_iz gi, ""Jn"r zdgi, ;;i;;; ;iffi;H:t village and Mandal, R.R Diskict tn"r"on *itr,ori'Iny"entitrurnent IA NO: 1 oF 2018 "rirr"r Petition under section 151 cpc praying that rn the circumstances stated rn the affrdavit filed in support of the wrii p"t,ii",i inl'li,gn Court may be pteased to drrect the official respondents to take ,t.", ,grirri tf,r"" n"rporO.,niN;T;;;", the crime No. 92 of 2018 dated Zf OZ_ZOje-i"J'," , srab the p'.op".tL" oiin; p"i;il;,;'i#;", ffi _t#:?XlililJ:[".:i,Xffll respect of petitioners property in Survey rui CSsnn n. r.rz gts"anJ Ac;;;,;i, srtuated at Medchar vifiage and Manoat, R.R. D,strict thereon without any entitlement, pending disposll of the above wrti peiit,In Counset for the petitioners: SRI M.A.K. MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRt D. PRADEEP, ASST. Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.S & 6: Ms. p. SRt LALITHA REp. SRI Y. HEMACHANDER The Court made the following: ORDER i I I t: THE HONOT'RABLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAIIJI WRIT PETITION No.8O6 2 oF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is frled under Article 226 of tl:.e Constitution of India seeking the following relief: o...to issue a u-trit of Mandamus declaing the dction of the official respondents in not taking ang action against the iespondent No. 5 inspite oJ registering tle FIR No. 92 of 2018 dated 21'02'2018 and not protecting the petiioners, their liues and properties inspite of the Respond.ent No. 5 is continuously using ciminal fore ti dtispossess tle petitioners uith the help of -fabricated doatments ruith intention to grab the -prcpertA in Surueg No. 833/ AA Ac 1'12 gts ond Ac'7-25 'gls- situated at Medchal uillage and Mondal' R'R' -Oi"t iA o" is illegat, arbitrary, in uiolation oJ pinciples of nahral iustice and in violatton of Articles' 14' 27 ond iOO-e oT rtu Constitution of India and con'sequentlg direct the oJficial respondents to take actton against the Respondeni No. 5 for trespassing and grabbing the properties of the petitioners and moking constructton in reipect of properTg in Surueg No 833/AA Ac 1-12 gts oni A. 1-25 gts situated at Medchal uillage and Mandal, R.R. Distnct lhereon uithout ony entitlement and to Pass. . . " 2 Heaid Mr.M.A.K-Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Sri Lalitha, learned counsel representing Mr. Y.Hemachander, learned counsel for respondent Nos'S and 6 and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No' 1 to 4' \ 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition has been hled seeking appropriate directions against tl e alleged inaction of the respondent- police authorities in conducting investigation in Crime No. 92 of 2018.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the said crime was duly investigated, and upon completion of investigation, a hnal report was filed on 28.O8.2O2O before the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Cyberabad, classifying the matter as civil in nature. Hence, it is contended that the grievance rarsed by the petitioners longer survives for con sideration.

5. I have perused the material available on record

6. The contention of the petitioners that the respondent-police auttrorities tailed to conduct a proper investigation is untenable in view of the admitted positign that a hnal report has already been hled belore the 3 competent Magistrate after due investigation, classifying the matter as civil in nature.

7. In view of the above position, nothing furttrer 1 remains for adjudication in this writ petition. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if the cause of action still survives or if they are otherwise aggrieved by the hling of the final report.

8. This petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Pendipg miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPY// CC CC CC CD to SRI M.A.K. MUKHEED, Advocate [OPUC] to SRI Y. HEMACHANDER, Advocate [OPUC] s to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Copies One One Two Two BN BS To, 1 2 1, 4 w \ HIGH COURT DATED:31 t10t20?:s ORDER WP.No.8062 of 2018 EHI s Y 2 16 r{,ii trii i spATC * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS ',\f'- 0 r{ ".s' L )0