Ravula Praveen Kumar v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or Direction or an order more particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents No. 2 to 4 in not considering the representation/ complaint of the petitioner dated 24t}8t2024 and 30t12t2o24 to initiate disciplinary action against the Respondent No.5 apart from criminal proceedings for fabricating and filing of forged charge sheet in J.C.C.No. 79 ot 2024 before the Juvenile Justice Board at Nalgonda against minors as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 12, 14,21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents No. 2 to 5 to take disciplinary action against rralr-t . !+'-gr;' .''. ?.' -,/ 'l . -$:s.!l r'.4r!.7 -/ the 3rd respondent apart from initiation of criminal proceedings for fabricating and filing of forged charge sheet against minors. LA.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representations/ com rlaint of the petitioner daled 2410812024 and 3O11212024 in accordance with law, pr:nding disposal of the main writ petitio n. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PULIMAM|DI SHASHIDHAFT REDDy Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : - The Court at the stage of admission made the following OFIDER r I t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.14923 of 2025 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Governmcnt Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I to 4, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hcaring and disposal at admission stagc.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ pctition and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of thc vier,v that notice to unofficial rcspondent No.5 is not necessary for adjudication ol the prcsent Writ Petition

3. The case oi the pelitioner, in brief, is that though the respondents authorities have registcred a casc against the petilioner uicle Crirnc No.186/2u23, dt.18,09.2023 arld clamed to have hled a charge sheet, dt.23.12.2o23, under the signaturc of the then Sub Inspector ol Police, Haliya, the same has been liled into the inrvard of the concerncd Court on 25.09 .2024, by which date, the said ofhcer has already been relieved from the duties of the concerned police station on Oa.O2.2O24, artd as such, the charge sheet as hled under the signature of the erstwhile officcr is by lorging his signature.

4. Petitioner further contends thal on noticing the above, he had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted representation s, dt.24.O8.2O24 and dt.3O-12.2O24, ald in spite of the 2 safne, no action has been taken by the 4th resprrnclent for filing a charge sheet by fcrging Lhe signature of the erstu h e officer. u,hich action of the respondents authoritics it is contendr:cl as highlv illegal and arbrlrary.

5. Per con.tra. lr:arned Govcrnment pleader appraring on bchalf of thc rcspondcnts u,ould submit that ort receiving the aforesaid complaints/ representations of thc pctitioner, the authorities have caused enquirv inLo the same ancl also verified u.ith thc officer conccrned, u.hosc signaturc is allcged to be having becn forged for liling tl're ctrarqc sheet beforc rhe concernecl coL rL: th.rt the said Officer hacl deposed that Lhc signature on tlrc charge sheet, dt.23.12.2o23, is his signature and that he himsell had conducted investigation in Crime No. 1g6/2023 registered rvhile he was discharging <luties as Sub-lnspector of police, IIali5,s p6li6q Station. t,. Leanred Government pleadcr further submits that since, the person, rvhose signature is allegcd to be forged, ha,rnq admitted the said signature on the subject chargc sheet to be h s signature, it is not open for the pctitioncr to disputc the signature o1 the said officer. 7 I have taken note of thc rcspective submissionl; made

8. It is interestir-rg to note that the petitioner is,:laiming that the signature of the Officer, who discharged duties as Sub_Inspector of Police, Haliya Police Station, having been forged b.i the incumbent i - "rlalqE rs'n:5qf,r "ii . 't\ - 3 officer '"vhile hling a charge sheet in Cr.No.186/2023 registered on 08.09.2023, without thc Offrcer, whose signature is alleged to be forged. himself not disputing the same.

9. Further, it is also to be noted that no material is placed before the Court to support ol the said claim of the signature of thc earlier authority having been forged for the petitioner to approach this Court by fiiing the present Writ Petition or approaching the respondents- authorities by submitting representations. Further, it is not shown to this Court ol thc petitioner having issued any notice to the Officer, \,"'hosc srgnature is allcgcd to be forgcd, brining to the notice o[ the said ofhcer for initiating any action, for the petitioner to substantiate his claim before this Court.

10. The only ground, which the petitioner seeks to urge is that the signature of the earlier officer having been forged by the incumbent officer, u.hile hling a charge sheet into the Court under the signature of the earlier Officer.

11. It is a known fact that the respondents-au thorities after conducting investigation into an FIR do not Iile charge sheet timely, and it is for the said reason, thts Court on administrative side has takcn certain mcasures for filing of charge sheets in crimes tl'rat are registered and investigated into by the authorities and for its mon it oring. r I

12. Thc merc fact of liling of charge shect at a l itcr datc under the signature of the cot-rcernccl Officer, who had condrrcteci investigation. urould not invalidate the investigation or the conlents of the charge sheet.

13. In thc facts of the case, since, the petitioner,s allegation is only on the basis of thc charge sheet having becn filcd at a later date, for him to assume that the signature of the erstq,hile olficer having been forged, this Court is o[ ihc considr:red rrieu, thrrt the samc is a farfetchcd imagination of lhe pc[ilioncr in order ]o Lnvoke the writ jurisdiction for assailing the action of filing char_ge sheet in a crime registered ald to claim inaction on the part of Lhe respondents_ authorities in consiclering the representations submitted br. him.

14. Further, taking noLc of Lhe fact that the 4 (r, responclent having conducted enqrrirl into the complaints lodgecl b5, the pctitioncr and also finding that the concerned officer, whose signature is allegcd to be forged, having admittcd thr: signature to be his o,r,,n and he having conducted investigation into the aforesaid crime a rd preparing the said charge shcet to be filed before the conccrned Co.rrt, which is filed at a latct date, in the considerecl opinion of this Court would not invalidate or can give rise to the petitioner tr approach the respondents-authoril ics r:laiming that the signatur,: on the charge sheet fiied before the concerned Court to be forged. 5

15. I,-or thc aforcsaid reasons, this Court is of the view thaL thc present Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismisscd. No ordcr as to costs.

16. (lonscquentli-, miscellancous petitions, if any, pending shall stancl closed //TRUE COPY/ t Sd/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I seitloN oFFlcER Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at 311"3t?i iRiL Lr MAMI Dr sHAS H I DHAR REDDY' Advocate [oPUc] Two CD CoPies r To 1 3 SA PVL I 1 I I I I I i I I I -l l.l S fri :. 14: ,/ i_)' 1 0 sEP 2026 ! I t ')'t HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 010612025 ORDER WP.No.14923 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. / 4-z "2,//,/.({