The High Court · 2025

4. Station House Officer, Gachibowli P.S, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 5. Mr. G Basava Reddy, The then S.H.O, Begumpet P.S, Presently working as lnspector O 0/0 IGP (lntelligence), Tank Bund, Hyderabad-3.

6. Smt. N. Susheela, W/o (Late) Pratap Reddy, Age: Not Known, Occ House Wife, Kondrapol (V), Damaracherla (lV), Nalgonda Dist.

7. Mr- G. Pavan Paul, S/o Not Known, Occ: Not Known, Rlio H.No 265/8, Sriram Nagar, Kondapur, Hyderabad. B. The Director, CBl, Plot No.5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,, New Delhi- 1 10003. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No-3 and 4 0 in not arresting the Respondents No 5 to 7 those who demolished the house of the petitioner with JCB, seriously injured the petitioner and her h - ;tand and removed the clothes of the petitioner, warned the petitioner over the pl :ne to withdraw the case filed against the Respondent No. to 7, if not, they will k ll the petitioner and trying to grab the property of the petitioner (ii) in not follov'i rr; the procedure of law with an aim tp support the illegal actions of the Respo.lents No. 5 to 7 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Apex Court directions and articl(r 21 of Constitution of lndia Consequently, diiect the Respondent No. B to r( gister a case and investigate of the complaints filed by the petitioner on 25.02', C17 and 19.06.2017 before the Respondent No 3 (in view of the Apex Court J lrlgment in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2006 Cr.L.J 1622 .:;t)). l.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:32754 OF 2017 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the clr )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to direct the Respondents No 1 & 2 to take immediate steps (i) to arrest to the Respondents No. 5 to 7 (ii) to take action against the Resp r rrdents No. 3 & 4 for not following the procedure of law in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI R.LAXMIKAII -H REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.s tol : -- Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : SRI K.SURENDER The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 26404 OF 20'17 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief "...[o lssue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. (i) in not arresting the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 those who demolished the house of the petitioner with JCB, seriously injured the petitioner and her husband and removed the clothes of the petitioner, warned the petitioner over the phone to withdraw the case filed against the Respondenl Nos. 5 to 7, t not. they v'till kill the petitioner and trying to grab the propefty of tlte petitioner (ii) in not following the procedure of law with an aim to suppoft the illegal actions of the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Apex Courl directions and arlicle 21 of the Constitution of lndia; Consequently, direct the Respondent No. 8 io register a case and investigate of the complaints filed by the petitioner on 25.02.2017 and 19.06.2017 before the Respondent No. 3 (in view of the Apex Court Judgment in Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (Govt. of NCI of Dell-ti) (2006 Cr.L.J. 1622 (SC)) and pass such other order or orders . . ."

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3.1. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that, based on the representations made by the petitioner, several crimes were registered, namely Crime Nos. 427 of 2017, 96 ot 2017, 103 of 2017,289 of 2017 , and 644 of 2017 . He further states that, after due investigation in 1 N7t1 / | ".1). \l 261()1 01 2017 - all the aforesaid cases, charge sheets were filed and t te matters were taken on file as C.C. Nos. 926 of 2017 , 5921 of 2022, 6 | ;8 of 2022,8748 of 2022, and S.C No. 28 of 2019, respectively

3.2. Healso points outthat C.C No. 926 of 2017 was r nded in acquittal on 07.05.2019 by the Court of the XXV N/etropc itan Magistrate, Kukatpally. Similarly, the accused in C.C. Nos. 5921 o1 lt)22and B74B of 2022 were acquitted on 29.12.2023 and 21 .03.2024, r,: ;oectively, by the Court of the X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First CIa ss, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. Further, in S.C. No. 28 of 2O1J the proceedings culminated in conviction on 02.09.2025 before tlr,: learned Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases relating t: Atrocities against Women-cum-Xlll Additional District and Sessions JuJ1e, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. The remaining case is presr ntly pending trial before the X Additional Judicial lVlagistrate of First Cl; iss, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. 3 3 ln view of these developnrents, the contentiorr: advanced by the petitioner have been effectively addressed by the r,.' ;oondents. Hence, nothing further survives for consideration in this writ p: ition.

4. I have perused the material available on record

5. The petitioner contends that the unofficial res pondents were not arrested by the police authorities despite the filing o1 rrultiple reports and 3 NTR,-/ V.P. Na 2640.1 of 201 that respondent No. B, the Central Bureau of lnvestigation (CBl), failed to register a case and conduct an investigation. However, the developments reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home demonstrate that crimes were indeed registered based on the petitioner's reports, duly investigated, and charge sheets filed in all the cases. Out of these, three calendar cases and one sessions case have already been adjudicated

6. Accordingly, the petitioner's allegation that the respondent police authorities failed to act on his representations is without merit Furthermore, the contention regarding the failure of respondent No.8 to register a case is untenable, as the CBI is not the competent authority to register crimes in the manner alleged 7 ln view of the above, and considering the developments reported, this Court finds that no further orders are required in the present nlatter B. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// 1 2 3 4 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the S Hyderabad.: [OUT] One CC to SRI D.V.RAO, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI K.SURENDER, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To SA BS SD/.M. NAGAMANI SISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER te f Telangana at HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 ORDER WP.No.26404 ot 2017 i\i OF /- ) o !) 'r\}t\ t\ \h

4. "? ], "{f.' :/ a DISMISSING THE W.P AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS. q J,