High Court · 2025

18.Vattikuti Vijay, S/o. Srinu, Age:27 years, Vo Thallamalkapuram village, Garidepally Mandal,Suryapet District. .,t

19. Vattikuti Radha, W,/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: about 35 years, R/o Thallamalkapuram village, Garidepally Mandal,Suryapet District.

20. Vattikuti Yashwanth, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age: about 22 years, R/o Thallamalkapuram village, Garidepally Mandal,Suryapet District. 21, Battini Srinu, S/o Malaiha, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mangapuram Thanda Village, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet DiStrict. Respondents. : ,, 1 Petition under Article 226 o1 lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed therewith, the High court may be pleaSed to issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature Of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the in action of the Respondents No' 3 Not consider the petitioner Representation Daled 28.11.2024 regarding to further investigation in connection to c.c. No.849 of 2024 on the file of the HOn'ble Judicial First class Magistrate at Huzurnagar through cBl or cB-clD or other lnvestigation Agency and further directed the Respondent No. 2 to 4 to ensure thorough investigation into the unlaMul conduct of the Respondents No.,|0 to 12 are involved in the illegal registered the FIR against the petitioner and to take appropriate disciplinary action against them for illegally foisted a theft case against the petitioner and harassed him put into lockup by used the third degree and illegally collected an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- lakhs from the petitioner, with active collusion unofficial respondent No.9 to 2'1 same is illegal, perverse and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No. 2lo consider the representation field by the petitioner on 28.1 1 .2024 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the rircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to-consider the representatio 1 field by the petitioner on.28.11.2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition A NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cc urt may be pleased to direct the 8th respondent to produce the entire records in the compared finger prints of the suspicious persons in connection to cc No.819 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Huzurnagar, pendrng disposal oI the above Writ Petition. Counsel for lhe Petitioner: SRI S. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 8: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 to 21: - The Court made the following: ORDER II I I E t ! I I I I i ; ; i i I l i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VTNOD XUMAR \II.P.No.1489O of 2025 ORDER Heard l,earned counsel for the petitioner, learned Governrnent Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I to 8, and with their consent the Writ Petition is Laken up for hearing ald disposal at admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petiLion and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the t,iew that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.g to 2i is not nccessary lor adjudication of the present Writ Petition

3. It is the case of the pclitioner, in brief, that respondents- authorities basing on a false complaint made by the unollicial respondents herein have registerecl a case uide Cr.No.63 /2O24, dt.26.O2-2O24, initiatly against ern unknovr.n person and thereafter claiming to have conducted in\tstiilation therein have falsely implicated the petitioner herein in rhc aforesaid crime. 4- Petitioner further contcnds that the rcspondcnts -authorities without conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime properly have laid a charge sheet bcforc rhc <:oncerned Court ergarinst the petitioner, which has been taken on rccord by assigning CC.No.849 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at HuzurnagaJ. z

5. It is further contended that the on resporrdents authorilies seeking to obtain [ingcr print of the petitioner in corncctittn u'ith rhc aforesaid CC, the petitioner had submitted a repolt, dL.2la.ll.2o24, seeking fi-rrther investigation into the aJoresaid CC, zLnd in spite oi the same, tht: said report has not been considered by the 3.d respondent.

6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader apperrring on behall of the respondents would submit that the responderLts-authori lies on regrstering a case uide Cr.No.63 of 2024, during the nvestrgali()11 have lound invoh,t:ment oI the pctitioner in the afor:said crimc zind acc'ordir-r6dv by collecting necessary evidence have filecl thc charge sheet befrrre the concerned Court. 7 lrarned Government Pleader furt]rer su bmits thal the representation submitted by the petitioner to the 3',i rcspondcnr, thc s:Lrne \\'a:i forr.r'arded lo the 4tr respondent and the said auth.ori:r trad condrrcte:l lurther enquiry into the matter and rlid nor [inC :rnr' correctness in rhe clarm of the petitioner.

8. k--:rrncd Government Pleader would furttrer submit th:rt il thc petiLloner rs aggrieved by the manner or course of investigertion or the corrrse o[ investigation, or having omitted any rele\ ant materi.rl, the petrtioner can approach the concerned Magistratr by nvariling the rcm<rrlies provided under BNSS and the petitioncr irstc:rrl oI a,'ailing such rcmcdies has hled the present Writ Petition. : I I I I I I I I t ! i I ; t t I t i i I I I i I 3 g. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

10. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner as to the police authorities not conducting investigation into the crime registered or the said inve stigation being biased, the Flon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vilubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs The State Of Gujarat 6o Anr.r had held that if any person has any grievance in relation to the course of investigation by the police authorities, they have to avail remedies provided under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C./ 193 of BNSS. 11- Since, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner claims of respondents-authorities havrng not conducLcd proper investigation and having wrongly arraved him as an accused in Cr.No.63/2O24, which was initialiy registerLtl against an unknou'n person, it is not shown to this Court o[ thc pctitioner availing the remcdy provided under BNSS. On the other hand, thc pctitioner had approached the 3.d respondent and sr.tbmitted rcpresentation, d1.2a.1I.2024, by which time, the respondents-authoritics have already conducted investigation and laid :r charge sheet bcfore thc concerned Court and the said charge shcct having been acccpted by thc ccncerned Magistrate by assigning OO Nri 8'19/2O24, this Court is I I of the view that the petitioner ought t<.r have availed the rcmedies provided under Cr.P.C./BNSS by Illing petition before the Magistrale - AIR 2019 SUPREME COUflT 5233 4 instead of approaching the 3.d respondent seeking furthcr investigalion into the matter, as by then, the sucject rnatter was aJready sr:ized of by the concerned Magistrate.

72. In .,.ierv of the above, this Court is of the view that thr: petitioner by the prescnt Writ Petition cannot seek for a ditection to the 3.d respondeltt or the 4rh respondent to whom the aforesaid representirtion rs fonvarclcd for conducting furthe:. enquiry in the matter which is already sub-judice before the concr,rned Magistratc, and instead ought- to have approached the conct:rned Magistrate before r.r,h:nr C.C. No.849 of 2024 is pending.

13. Granting liberty to the petitioner as noted above. the Writ Petition is disposcd of. No order as to costs.

14. Consequr.'nllv, misccllaneous petitions, if an;r, pending shall stand cir rs' d sD/- A. sRrNrvASA REDD' TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1- The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. ECTION OFFICER Telangana, Secretariat

2. The Director General of Police, Govemment of Telangana, Hyderabad, office at Telangana State Police Head Quaiters.

3. The Insoector General of police, Multi Zone-ll, Hyderacad, office at Telangana state Pc)lice Head Quarters.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Suryapet District, At Suyapet. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodad, At kodad, Suryapet District. 6. The Station Horrse Officer, Huzurnagar, At Huzurnagar, Suryapet District. 7. The St,ation House Officer, Palakaveedu Police Station At Palakaveedu, Suryapot District.

8. The Assistant Sub lnspector of Police, Finger Print Unit, ClD, Suryapet At Suryapt:t District. i I I I \ J

9. One CC to SRI S. CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI 10. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 1'l . Two CD CoPies 5/ tVIP i HIGH COURT DATED:1010612025 i, <, \ 17 sEP ,20ff I WP.No.14890 of 2025 1 \ il,i j i Ji I I I I I I t! t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /4- 4z 4 ,/r,4.r