High Court · 2025

IBf,lff:,lJ B':lum s;rd,lJJ:"?llciParosecretarY The Superintendent of Police, Medak District' Medak' The lnspector of Police, P'S Tekmal' Tekmal Mandal' lvledak District' Sri Chinna Swamy, Police Constable/ Writer' P'S' Tekmal' Tekmal Mandal' tt/edak District "'RES'.NDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting proper investigation in Crime No 19 of 2023 dated 22'02 2023 on the file of PS Tekmal, Medak District registered U/s 304 (A)' 337 IPC and not taking action as per Representation/Complaint dated 21 '03 '2023 made by the 1st Petitioner to the Respondent No.2 and 3 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide and violating Article 1 4, 19 (1 ) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and issue consequential directions, directing the Respondent No 1 to 3 to refer the case to an investigating agency, i'e' C'l'D ' for detailed and balanced investigation in CrimeNo.19oI2023daled22'02'2023onthefileofPSTekmal'MedakDistrict 7 registered U/s 304 (A), 337 rpc by considering the Representation/compraint dated 21.03 2023 made by the 1st petitioner, as the petitioners suspect impartiar investigation by the Respondent No.3. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No 1 to 3 to refer the case to an investiga,n, ,nun"r,-, c r'D ' for detaired and baranced investigation in crime No. 1g of 2023 dated " 22.02.2023 on the fite of pS Tekmal, Medak District registered U/s 304 (A), 337 IPC by considering the Representation/compraint dated 21 .o3.2023 made by the 1st petitioner, as the petitioners suspect impartial investigation by the Respondent No.3. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI G.NARENDER Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: The Court made the following: ORDER SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME w o THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N' TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIONN o.1 0066 0F 2023 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "....-fo issue a Wit Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the respondents in not conducting proper investigation in Crime No.19 of 2023 dated 22'02.2023 on the file of PS'Tekmal' Medak District registered lJ/s'304-A' 337 tPC and not taking action as per Representation/Complaint dated 21 '03 2023 made by the 1st Petitioner to the Respondent No'2 and 3 as illegal, uniust, arbitrary' malafide and v.iol.ating Article 14' 19(1) and 21 of tie Constitution of lndia and issue consequential directions directing the Respondent No'l to 3 to refer the case to an investigating agency i'e ' C'l D for detaited and balanced investigation in Cime No'19 of 2023 dated 22.02'2023 otn the fite of PS'Tekmal' Medak District consideing the registered lJ/s'3O4-A' 337 IPC by Representation/Comptaint dated 21 '03 2023 made by the 1st petitioner as tne p'etitioners suspect impaftiat investigation by the Respondent No'3 and pass such other order' " - I have heard Mr.G'Narender' learned counsel for the petitioners and 2. Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No"l to 3'

3.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the wife and brother of the deceased As they suspected foul play and found the investigation to be improper' they filed the present petition seeking a direction to refer Crime No'19 of 2023' dated22'O2'20"' on t5-, 2 fire of rekmar porice station, Medak District, to another investigating agency, namely the Crime Investigation Department (C.l D).

3.2. He further contends that, on the day of.the incident, petitioner No. .l repeatedly made phone calrs to wahab, who had accompanied her husband, but he faired to answer. Much rater that night, wahab informed that accident had occurred to their driver Basavaraj and that the deceased had been taken to the hospitar. Thereafter, wahab did not return to the village and has since been residing ersewhere. These circumstances, according to counsel, provide sufficient basis to suspect the involvement of the accused in causing the death of the deceased.

3.3. Counsel also points out that, as per the investigating agency, petitioner No.2 allegedly made a statement during the course of investigation. However, petitioner No.2 specifically denies having given any such statement, either orally or in writing. Moreover, in the statement of Wahab recorded by the police, it is noted that he came to know of the death of the deceased and that he informed Basavaraj, a known rival of the petitioners. This, it is submitted, raises further reasonabre grounds to suspect foul play in the investigation. On these grounds, counsel prays for a direction to transfer the investigation to the C.l.D.

4.1. ln response, the learned Assistant Government pleader, on written - instructions, submits that the porice have dury investigated the matter. w o J According to the investigation' on 21'02'2023 at about 9:00 P'M'' the deceased, Shivaraj, was riding a motorcycle with Wahab as pillion rider' At around 9:45 P'M ' near the outskirts of Kadloor village on the state highway, the deceased, while riding rashly and negligently' lost control of the vehicle, rammed it to the left side of the road' struck a pothole' and collided with a mango tree' As a result' the deceased sustained grievous head injuries, while Wahab sustained facial injuries' Both were shifted to the Government Hospital for treatment' but the deceased succumbed to his injuries en route' whereas Wahab survived after treatment' 4.2. The Assistant Government Pleader further relies upon the post- mortem examination report' which records that the death was caused due to "head injury and polytrauma'" Based on these findings' the investigating police requested that the authorities close the case as abated due to the death of rider' who was found responsible for the accident' Therefore, the respondents contend that the investigation was conducted properly, and there exists no iustifiable basis for suspicion' much less for further investigation' I have perused the materials on record'

5. 6. As per the submissions of the petitioners' their grounds for raising suspicion are limited to three aspects: (i) that Wahab' who accompanied the d,eceased, did not answer the phone calls of petitioner No'1 (the wife -+ 4 of the deceased) on the night of the incident, (ii) that Wahab informed about the accident and death to their rivar Basavarai, and (iii) that wahab did not return to the viilage after the occurrence. These three circumstances, however, do not constitute substantial grounds for suspecting foul play; at best, they amount only io remote reasons which cannot reasonably justify a foul play in the investigation. 7. A careful consideration of these pleadings are primarily pointing to the involvement to Wahab in the occurrence. However, even assuming the above grounds are analysed, the very fact that the deceased and wahab were trave'ing together at the time of the incident is indicative of their cordial relationship. The petitioners themselves admit that no prior enmity existed between the deceased and Wahab. In such circumstances, suspecting Wahab,s role in the death of the deceased is unfounded and speculative.

8. Furthermore, as per the police records, the statement of the sole eyewitness, namely Wahab, together with the other documentary material, including the post Mortem Examination Report, are estabrishing that the accident occurred at about 9:30 p.M. near Kadloor village. Wahab himself sustained injuries in the accident and was shifted to the hospitar for treatment' rn these circumstances, the fact that he subsequenfly informed Basavaraj about the deceased,s death cannot, by itself, form a valid ground to draw adverse inferences against him. rt is we, setfled that the-ts I I Y a 5 can be no rigid formula dictating the precise manner in which an injured witness or associate of the deceased should communicate such information to relatives of the victim' lnforming a person considered to be a close acquaintance or relative is a natural human response' whereas immediate communication to the family could' in certain situations' cause severe emotional distress' 9. The Post Mortem Examination Report conclusively records that the cause of death was "head injury and polytrauma"' with no indication whatsoever of homicidal assault' This medical evidence further displaces the petitioners' apprehension of foul play' as it rules out homicidal death and corroborates the account of a road traffic accident' 10. The contention that petitioner No'2 was not examined by the police also lacks merit' The record produced by the Station House Officer indicates that a statement of petitioner No 2 was in fact recorded' ln any event, petitioner No'2 is admittedly not an eyewitness to the occurrence' and therefore, his statement' whether recorded or not cannot materially affect the validity of the investigation' 11. With respect to the contention that Wahab informed Basavaraj' who argument too ls rival of the Petitioners' this is alleged to be a material has been Produced to establish how "rival" or how his alleged rivalry is connected unsustainable. No Sasayaraj can be termed a r 6 with the occurrence. On the contrary, if Basavaraj was indeed a rival, the unexplained fact as to why the petitioners themselves engaged him as their driVer renders their allegation doubtfur. This contention, therefore, does not withstand scrutiny.

12. Viewed cumulatively, there is no material, either in the pleadings or in the record, that would justify a conclusion that the investigation was improper or tainted. The Hon,ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that transfer of investigation to another agency, such as the c.r.D. or c.B.r., is an extraordinary step which can be directed only when there exist compelling circumstances demonstrating bias, mala fides, or gross rncompetence on the part of the investigating agency (See. Sfale of West Bengal v. Committee for protection of Democratic Rights, (ZO1O)3 SCC 571; Sakin Vasu v. Sfafe of Ltttar pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 4Og). No such circumstances have been established in the present case. 13 Moreover, the petitioners have not exprained why they did not avair the alternative statutory remedy under Section 173(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1g73, which empowers the Magistrate to direct further investigation if the circumstances so warrant. The avairabirity of this remedy makes the present writ petition further untenable.

14. ln light of the above discussion, the apprehensions raised by the petitioners are unfounded, speculative, and unsupported by any credible w 7 material. There is no reason to doubt the fairness or propriety of the investigation conducted by the police Accordingly' the contentions are devoid of merit, and the writ petition is advanced bY the Petitioners liable to be dismissed' 15 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed' However, the rights of the petitioners are reseryed to avail the remedy before the Magistrate to pass survive and he is advised so There shall be no order as to costs I I To, MiscellaneousPetitions'pendingifany,shallstandclosed. /,TRUE GOPY// S,E?iNYAEI'EFRRI / SECTI oN OFFICER One CC to SRI G.NARENDER' Advocate [OPU

2. Iwo CCs to GP FOR HOML' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvd erabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies BSR PVL HIGH COURT DATED:01 t}gtz}zi ORDER WP.No.10066 of ZO2g -,'1 .-. - -A .;' ' .- '- . '. :: ,.: . :.. -,i. ' .-,, ,:,rrl^ '.'.. tI,:.' i,.] i , C:, ?.1ffi , ,,i\/ ,ll r!. :,--. .. .a,. .. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS / 4 za- /l