High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 oI the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS, declaring the action on the part of the Respondents herein more particularly 4th Respondent in not considering the Petitioner's Representation dt31.03.2025 for conducting an in-depth investigation in the suspicious death of his son namely Master Md Shabbir aged of 14 years in the agriculture land and not co-operating with the petitioner herein having received the as illegal, Arbitrary, capricious, Malafide, against the principles of Natural justice and thus liable to be interdicted and consequently direction may be given to the Respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation at the earliest. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 4th Responder)t t( send the sampres to the FSL Laboratory at trre earriest and conduct an in-depth i r',,estigation in the above suspicious death of the son of the petitioner pending ,l sr rrsal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petiti,>ner: SRI MOHD ABDUL eAVl ABBASI Counsel for the Resp rndents: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.l143O of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondent Nos.l to 4, and with the consent of 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 though the respondents-authorities have registered a case uide Cr.No.105/2025, dt.31.03.2025, in relation to the death of his son, they are not conducting investigation into the a-foresaid crime by considering the representation of the petitioner, dt.31.03.2025, q,hich action of the respondents- authorities it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary ald in dereliction of duties.

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents-authorities would submit that though initially the death of the petitioner's son was 2 -1 recorded it -r 'on account of heart attacl<'. b.rt on the petitione ' u-rproaching the respondents-auttLorit ies and submittinil : complaint on 31.03.2025, alter c> pi nr of 14 days, r:ortpr : ning about the suspicious death oI his son on' 1 B .03 . i)0 2 5 the authorities have registered it ci Lse ujde Cr.No.l O;l lt-.t25 on 31.03.2025; that on the e.foresaid crime be rLe registered, the authorities have e>llru;.ned the body o1- 1L r: ,leceased and subjected to post-rr ortr:m; and that the au -i'Lorities are conducting investigation nto the aforesaid cr rrre. 4 . Lea:rtr r:1 Government Pleader further sub x itr. that if the petitir)r r:r is not satisfied with the r:cntluct of investigatior in the aforesaid crime registered. re has to avarl thr: r'e n :dies provided under Section 175(3) rf BNSS.

5. I hir'.,e taken note of the respective s rrrn.issions made.

6. Thotr:J r-he petitioner now claims of the resl;o:rdents- authorities r rrt conducting in-depth investigatior into the suspiciour; c : irth of his son, as the petitioner ir iti ail1, on the death of ris son on 18.03.2025 having btrrierl thr: body, 3 and after expiry of 14 days, having approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a representation, dt.31.03.2025 complaining as to the suspicious death of his son, based on which the authorities having registered the aforesaid crime against the persons named in the said complaint, and during the process of investigation having exhumed the buried body and getting post-mortem done, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot allege of \ the respondents-authorities not conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime registered by considering his I t representation.

7. Further, it is also to be noted that since, a complaint has been given by the petitioner only on 31.03.2025, based on which the respondents-authorities having registered a case orL the very same day uide Cr.No. lO5l2O25, and conducting investigation into the a-foresaid crime registered, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner of investigation or the provisions under which the accused in the aforesaid crime are charged with, the petitioner has to avail further remedies provided under Section 175(3) of BNSS, and for the Said reason, the petitioner cannot seek a 4 -_ -.,1 direction ir ir Writ petition filed under Article 226 of t]ne Constritu -io r of India. B. Cr: rrt .rg liberty to the petitioner to avail th: r emedies provided rrr c:er BNSS, the Writ petition is disprr;e<l of. No order as -() )sts. 9 . Oor s,e I Lrently, miscellaneous petitior-rs p:n Jing, if aly, shal s;, and closed. SD/-P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA q\E P{,JTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 , \, ' sEc'noN oFFtcER The Princ;prrl S :cretary, Home Department, Secret#ary, Hyde"abad, Telangana. Sta .r of Telangana. The Superink-.r jent of Police, Nalgonda, District, Telangarra. The Deputy S u rerintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Distric[, Telan gana The S^tation-F o 11e_ O{ic,e1,_PS Devearakonda, Nalgonda, Distri5t, Telangana. One CC to S;tll IVOHD AB2! t1 QAVI ABBASI, Advbcate [OF U()] Two CCs to Ci F trOR HOME, High Court for the State of ie.,lan11dna, at Hyderabad. [O -rT] Two CD Copier * To 1 2 3 4 6 7 PSK. LS HIGH COURII DATED:17n4eO2S ORDER WP.No.11430 rf 2O2S I ;,s ( 1\rE ST4IA + J O o 6 trlAY 20zs 2 tl-t 'ssr,iI,-, u€! * ( o ]J DISPOSING OI' THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS TS (+- 2,,\