The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.NAGA RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.l,r$& 4 to 7: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No PUBL]C PROSECUTOR / The Court made the following: ORDER , THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VIITOD KUMAR W.P.No.2OL8Z of 2Ol9 ORDER: This Writ Petition is frled with the following prayer: "...to issue anA appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in tte nnfire of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to utithdrana tlrc case i.e., FIR.No.B2 of 2006 dated 12.04.2016 pending on tlrc file of Station House Officer, Yadagirtgutta i.e., Respondent No.7 herein and entrust the same to an independent agencA like CBCID under the control and jurbdiction of Respondent No.3 for causing reinuestigation bg adding the Respondents 9 to 12 in the aboue crime as accused in a transparent and unbiased manner bg dulg declaring the action of the Respondent No.7 in conducting tle biased and partial inuestigation in tLrc aboue crime by not adding the Respondents 9 to 12 as accased in ttrc aboue crime euen though he petitiorrcr has specificallg made allegations against them os illegal, arbitrary, and. contrary to the prouisions of Cr.P.C., and also antrary to ttte utell settled principles of law..."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l,2, &,4 to 7, learned Special Public Prosecutor/Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is tJ at though the 7tl, respondent had registered a case utde Crime No.82/2016, I I ! 2 dt-r2-o4.2o16, the said authority did not conduct investigation there into properly, particularly not bringing to book the real accused in the aforesaid crime i.e., the unoflicial respondents herein and proceeding only against 8e respondent herein, even though the other unofficial respondents herein are also involved in commission of the said crime

4. Petitioner further contends t]'at though the 7ft respondent claims to have frled a charge sheet after conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime which is said to have been taken on record and numbered as SC.No.L4sr2oLZ, the same shows the routine and casual manner in which the 7e respondent has frled the chargesheet without causing proper investigation into the said crime and thus, the aforesaid crime shourd be withdrawn from the 7th respondent and entrusted to an independent agency like cBCID under the control and jurisdiction of the 3.d respondent for causing reinvestigation by adding unofficial respondent Nos.9 to 12 in the above crime as accused and to conduct reinvestigation in a transparent and unbiased manner. 5- It is the further case of the petitioner that on 12.04-2016 his father namelg Kamala Manohar Rao @ Kamalakar Rao, went to Kambal's well on his white Activa bearing No.TS 05 3013 to bring 3 dung and as he failed to return home, he made a ca-ll on his father's mobile number, but there was no response; and that about 1015 hrs, he once-again made another call to his father's mobile number, but the same was switched off. 6- It is the further case of the petitioner that as his father did not return home and his mobile was switched off, he along with his friends enquired about the disappearance of his father and during the course of enquiry, one Manimeni Komraiah and Kanakaraju stated that they saw their father going towards Gacchukunta side, upon which the petitioner proceeded towards Gacchukunta side and while searching, found his father dead in a brook with bleeding injuries on back of his head and they found blood stains; and that his father's spectacles, chappals and Lenovo phone were found at the dead body.

7. Petitioner further contends that on seeing his father at the said location, he had realiznd that someone called his father to Gacchukunta and murdered him and immediately lodged a complaint with ttre 7fr respondent against respondent Nos-8 to 12; and tllat the 7th respondent instead of registering the case against the unofficial respondent Nos.S to 12 herein, had registered the case only against the 8fr respondent and on being questioned as to why \ 4 the 7th respondent did not include respondent Nos.9 to L2, the 7ft respondent informed that he will include the names of the said respondents in the FIR later.

8. Petitioner further contends that the 8th respondent bore grudge against the his father as his daughter fell in love with one Yashwanth Reddy and when the 8th respondent refused to perform their marriage, she eloped with Yashwanth Reddy and the 8th respondent suspects the active support of his father for his daughter eloping with said Yashwanth Reddy and thus, hatched a plan to do away with the life of his father with the hetp of unofficial respondent Nos.9 to 12 herein. g- It is the further case of the petitioner that though in the complaint given by him to the 7fr respondent, he had mentioned the names of respondent Nos.8 to 12 specifically as being the persons responsible for the death of his father, the 7ft respondent instead of arraying all the persons mentioned in tlle complaint as accused, has simply arrayed the 8th respondent as sole accused. 1O. Petitioner further contends tJlat after his father being murdered, the petitioner and his family left the village due to fear of life and to protect their lives; that on his recent return to village and 4a on enquiry with regard to the status of the complaint filed by him, it I I J waslearntthattheTmrespondentfiledchargesheet,dt.o4.|2.2o|6 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair, on 07'0 L'2OL7 only against the 8th respondent and did not file any charge sheet against respondent Nos'9 to 12' stating that there is no evidence availabte against ttre said resPondents' ll.Itisthefurthercaseofthepetitionerthataperusaloft]re chargesheetasfiledbyt}reThrespondentclearlyshowsthatthe contents of the charge sheet are nothing but reiteration of the remandreportandwouldclearlyevidencettrattheTthrespondentdid notCauseproperenquiryintotheaforesaidcrimeinordertoshield respondent Nos'9 to 12' 12- Thus, the petitioner contends that having regard to the gravity ofincidentandthelacklustermannerinwhichtheinvestigationis done by the 7th respondent' created a doubt in his mind of the 7th respondent shielding respondent Nos'9 to 12' even though their names are specifrcally mentioned in the complaint given by him' 13. It is the further case of the petitioner that since' the 7th respondent had filed a charge sheet, only against the 8ft respondent' withoutconductinginvestigationintotheaforesaidcrimeinafair and just manner which is taken cognizance and numbered as S.C.No.l45of2oLTonthefrleoftheVAdditionatDistrict&sessions t" , j I 6 Judge,Bhongir,thisCourtshouldd.irectrespondentNo.2totransfer the investigation to an independent agency like CBCID'

14.Counteraf|rdavitonbehalfofrespondentNos.land2and4to T,underthesignatureoftheTthrespondentisfrled.Bythecounter affrdavit,therespondents,whiledenyingthewritavermentsastothe respondents-authoritiesnotconductinginvestigationintoCrime No.82/2016, dt. |2.04.2016 in a transparent and unbiased manner, contended that based on the complaint of the petitioner, a case uide CrimeNo.82l2o16underSections3o2and2oloflPCwasregistered and investigated into by the circle Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta; and that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer draftedSceneofoffenceobservationpanchanamaandalsodrew rough sketch of the scene and also utilized the services of dog squad and clues team

15. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that they collected material objects including the scooter of the deceased from thesceneofoffence,examinedthecomplainantandotherwitnesses andrecordedtheirdetailedstatements,a.rrdthatinquestandPost Mortem Examination were conducted and after conducting autopsy' the dead body was handed over to the petitioner/complainant for performing final rituals'

16. By the counter affidavit it is contended that the Investighting officer made efforts to locate the accused person responsible for commission of offence and on 15.04.2016, the Investigating officer arrested the accused uiz., vallala Naga Mdlaiah and his detailed confessional statement was recorded; and that said Naga Mallaiah voluntarily confessed to have murdered the deceased and in pursuance of the aforesaid confession made by the accused, the Investigating officer seized an Axe, which was used in the commission of offence at his instance from Gummula brook area under the cover of a panchanama and the said Naga Mallaiah was remanded to judicial custody.

17. By the counter aflidavit it is further stated that the said accused person did not confess the involvement of other persons in commission of offence.

18. By the counter affidavit it is further stated that during tl:e course of investigation into the subject crime, it was revealed that the accused-Naga Marlaiah earlier worked. as courier in Radicals union under Swarnakka Dalam and satyam Dalam and was involved in bus burning case at Athmakur Police station and was remanded to judicial custody, and in the year LggL, he surrendered before the police through Gurram Yadagiri Reddy, the then MLA of Ramannapet i .i I I I I 8 \ and after his release from jail on bail, he migrated to his in-laws house situated at Gollagudiselu Hlo Datharpally village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, and since then he has been doing agricultural work by taking land of sadhuneni Ranga Rao on lease to eke out his livelihood.

19. By the counter affrdavit it is stated that about g years prior to the occurrence of the incident, the said accused - Naga Mallaiah purchased plot to an extent of 2L2 sq. yards in survey No.192 from one Amrutharao @ Rs.2.85 lakhs and the deceased saduneni Kamala Mohan Rao was the mediator for the said transaction.

20. The respondent No.7 by the counter affrdavit further claimed that ttre said accused-Naga Mallaiah paid an amount of Rs.2.g lakhs to Amrutha Rao and requested to register the plot and promised that he would pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- after registration of plot. However, the owner of the plot refused to register and asked him to approach the deceased-Kamala Manohar Rao, for registration of plot, but the deceased dodged the issue on one pretext or the other. 2l- By the counter affidavit it is further contended that six months prior to the date of incident, the deceased. contacted the accused and his Firrand informed them that their daughter fell in love with one ". t" Yashwanth Reddy and asked them to perform her marriage with Yashwanth Reddy' and as the accused refused to perform the marriage, his daughter eloped with Yashwanth Reddy and got married on 23'12'2()25at Aryasamaj' Secunderabad' 22. By the counter affidavit it is stated that the accused suspected thatwiththeactivesupportofthedeceased'hisdaughtereloped withYashwanthReddyandbothmarried,andsincethen,hebore grudge against the deceased and decided to do away with the deceased

23.Bythecounteraffidavititisfurtherstatedthattheaccused. Naga Mallaiah having hatched the plan to do away with the deceased, had purchased an Axe from Yadagirigutta market and was carrying the same with him by keeping it at his back hanging to banianandcoveringwithatowelandwaswaitingforanopportunity to kill the deceased'

24.Bythecounteraffidavititisfurthersta'tedthatontl.o4.2ol6, whiletheaccusedwasreturninghomefromagriculturalwell,which was taken on lease from Ranga Rao' the deceased met him and askedtheaccusedastowheresandisavailableforconstructionof compoundwalltohishouse;andthattakingadvantageofthesaid enquiry, the accused misrepresented tlat the sand is available at 10 Gatchukuntaarea;thatthedeceasedinformedtheaccused-Naga Mallaiah that they would go the next day; that on L2'O4'2O16 at 0630 hours, the deceased left his house on his Activa Scooter by keepingonebucketinfrontofthescooterinordertobringdungand wenttowardsKambalollaagriculturewellsandasthedungwasnot available there, he proceeded ahead'

25.Bythecounteraffidavititisstatedt}rattheaccused-Naga Mallaiahonnoticingthedeceasedmovingonhisscooter,feltthatit wastherighttimetokillthedeceasedandaskedthedeceasedto comealongwithhimtoGatchukuntaareatoseewhet]rersandis availablethere;thatthedeceasedbelievingthewordsofaccused agreedtovisitthesaidplaceandthedeceasedaskedtheaccusedto come along with him on his scooter' but the accused asked the deceasedtogotoGatchukuntaareaonhisscooter,whilehewould come through another way; that the deceased went to Pala Chandraiahagriculturewellandcollecteddunginhisbucketand wenttoGatchukuntabrookonhisScooterandinthemeantime,the accused'-NagaMallaihreachedGatchukuntaareathroughroclg/area and joined the deceased'

26.Bythecounteraffidavititisfurtherstatedthatonthe deceasedparkinghisscooterandmovingahead,theaccusedafter 11 following the deceased from some distance and on seeing the deceased reaching the side of Gatchukunta brook, took out the axe and hit on the right side neck of the deceased violently, due to which the deceased fell down on the ground and that the accused again hit on the right side of the neck of the deceased with axe and after some time, the accused hit on the right side of the throat of the deceased with axe resulting in instantaneous death.

27. By the counter aflidavit it is also stated that the accused-Naga Matlaiah after confirming to himself of the deceased having died, caught hold of the legs of the deceased and dragged the dead body and dumped on the bank of the brook with an intention to prevent the vision of the dead body from a long distance.

28. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that the claim of petitioner of the 7th respondent having not made proper and fair investigation with an intention to shield respondent Nos.9 to 12 by deleting their names is false and baseless, as their names were deleted, after obtaining permission from the Superintendent of Police and filed charge sheet against the accused/Stt' respondent herein alone; and that the Tttr respondent had made proper and systematic investigation from all angles and as no prima facie case was established against respondent Nos.9 to 12, their names were \ \ t2 \ deleted by duly obtaining permission from the superintendent of Police utde Merno, dt-01.77.20L6; that a charge sheet was filed against the accused/gtrr respondent herein after obtaining a,r relevant certificates; and that it was taken on file uid.e SC.No.I4S/2OIZ and is pending trial.

29. By the counter affidavit it is further contended that the claim of the petitioner of respondent Nos.g to 12 influencing the 7th respondent for not arraying them as accused in the aforesaid crime, rs not correct and is baseless.

30. By the counter affidavit it is contended that cBCID deals with mysterious and sensational crimes, while in the facts of the present case, since, investigation was completed and curprit being arrested and prosecuted before a competent court of raw, the issue invorved in this case does not warrant for entrusting the case to CBCID 31' on behalf of the 3'd respondent, it is contended by the learned Special pubric prosecutor that insofar as thd relief sought for by the petitioner seeking for reinvestigation into crime No.g2/2or6 by entrusting it to .BCID is concerned, this is not a case warranting ordering of reinvestigation by High court and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which investigation is conducted, he has to appro?ch the concerned the court before whom the case uide \ r..;E1i:&;;.. "t 13 SC.No. L4512O17 is pending and for the said reason, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition.

32. On behalf of the 3'd respondent, it is further contended that since, the offence is registered under the provisions of IPC, it is only the State authorities, who are empowered to investigate into the aforesaid crime and only where an offence is registered under IPC and also under Special Act, the power of investigation by police is ousted and is conferred with the CBCID.

33. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further contends that since, the crime No.82/2016 is registered under the provisions of Ipc read with cr.P.c, the petitioner cannot seek for reinvestigation into the aforesaid crime by CBCID authorities.

34. I have taken note of the respective submissions made

35. The case of t]:e petitioner is that the Ttir respondent having not conducted investigation in a transparent and unbiased manner as having failed to array the respondent Nos.9 to L2 herein as accused in the aforementioned crime registered based on his complaint, despite their names having been mentioned in the complaint, warranting re-investigation by agency like the 3.d respondent, it is to be noted that though the de-facto complainant in the complaint I I I I i II :i :i !i : L4 grven to the 7th respondent-authority in relation to the suspicious death of his father had claimed the same to be at the hands of respondent Nos.8 to 12, the Ttlr respondent-authority after conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime and after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, uide Memo, dt.0L.Ll.2OL6, having filed charge sheet against the 8fr respondent/accused, the petitioner if aggrieved by the said action of the 7th respondent, ought to have approached the concerned Court, on the file of which the subject SC.No.I45l2ol7 is pending, either by filing a protest petition or by frling a petition seeking further investigation.

36. If only the petitioner had Iiled a protest petition or a petition seeking further investigation,. the same could have been considered by tJ:e concerned Court. However, it is not shown to this Court of the petitioner availing remedies provided under Cr.P.C., before approaching this Court.

37. It is but natural that when a complaint is lodged, names of various suspects are given, it is not necessary that all the suspects mentioned in the complaint to come together to commit the offence. '.-

38. -Though the petitioner in the complaint lodged with the 7th respondent on 12.04.2016 had mentioned the names of respondent t Ee; ;i t'n I 1 I 15 Nos.8 to 12, they are only suspects in the commission of the aforesaid c-rime. The 7th respondent during the course of investigation into Crime No.8212016 having found that the aforesaid crime as having been committed by the 8th respondent, and also the 8th respondent having admitted to have committed the said offence, the mere apprehension/suspicion of the petitioner of the involvement of respondent Nos.g to L2 would not automatically make the said respondents either to be included as accused or charged in the commission of the said offence.

39. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner of investigation into Crime No.82/2O16 and also the charge sheet laid before the concerned Court, which is numbered as SC.No. l45l2OL7 , the petitioner is required to file petition under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., before the concerned Court seeking further investigation, and if only such a petition is filed and the concerned Court is satisfied, it can order further investigation.

40. Since, the petitioner suspects ttre involvement of respondent Nos.9 to 11 in commission of the Crime No.86/2016 of killing his father, and the said respondents not being arrayed as accused in the aforesaid crime, that by itself would not give a right to the petitioner to seek reinvestigation into the crime by withdrawing the same from 16 the respondents-authorities and handing it over to the 3.d respondent for re-investigation. 4L. Further, it is arso to be noted that the 3ra respondent is premier investigating agency of the country and for mere asking, a case cannot be transferred to the said agency for being investigated into either by reinvestigation which is nothing but denovo investigation or further investigation. 42' The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of K.v. Rajendran vs superintend.ent of pofice, cbcid, south zone, chennai & orsr. had held that exercise of power of transferring cases to independent investigating agency like GBCID must be in rare and in exceptional cases and observed as under: "the power of transferring such inuestigation must be in rere and excepttonal cases uthere the courl ftnd.s it necessary in order to do justice between tlp parties and to instil confi.dence in *e pubric mind, or u.there inuestigation bg the state porice racks credibititg and it is necessc ry for truuing "a fair, Lrcnest and complete inuestigation,,, and particularly, uthen it is imperatiue to retain public confidence in the impartiar working of the state agencies. where the inuestigation has alreadg been compreted. and charge sheet has been fited., ord.inailg supeior courts 1 lzor:; 12 scc 480 t' L7 should" not reopen the inuestigation and. it shauld be lefi open to t?e court, where the charge sleet hns been filed' to proceed withtlrc matter in accordance withlau.t' 43- Further, tl.e Apex Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaoiga as. state of Guiaratz had dealt with the power of Magistrate to order further investigation on the basis of the petition Iiled by the de-facto complainant as to the defects in the investigation.

44. Further, the Apex court in vinag TYagi as lrsh.ad Ali & othersc also held that power to order/direct investigationf de nouo investigation though is in the domain of higher Courts, such power is to be exercised only in exceptional cases.

45. The Apex court while holding as above further observed that mere filing of a charge sheet by the police before the Magistrate would not result in its automatic acceptance and the Magistrate may either accept or reject the said report, and when the Court declines to accept such a report, may direct further investigation in the matter. 2 (zotg) 17 sccz 3 (zor:) ssccT62 \. \ 18 x

46. If only the petitioner is aggrieved by the charge sheet filed by the 7ft respondent, he ought to have filed a protest petition before the concerned Court, upon which the said Court could have taken a decision, as to whether to accept the charge sheet or reject the same by directing further investigation.

47. Since, the petitioner did not chose to avail the remedies provided under cr.P.c., cannot in a writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India seek for reinvestigation and that too, by withdrawing the case from the respondent/state-authorities and handing over the sarne to the CBCID.

48. Further, having regard to the settled position of law that the cases, which require investigation by CBCID/CID to be the rarest of the rare cases involving the higher officials or the investigating agency themselves, in the facts of the present case, since, none of the requisite conditions for referring the subject crime to cBCID being satisfred, this court is of ttre view that the relief sought for by the petitioner under the present Writ Petition cannot be granted.

49. However, it is open for the petitioner to avail remedies open to him in law/cr.P.c. before the concerned court against the charge sheet ltlet{ by the 7tt, respondent in cr.No.82/ 2016, which is numbered as SC.No. L45l2OL7 , If he is so advised. -:::,'::.-e_ ---?:-..:.-::' v! I 7 19 Granting liberty as noted hereinabove' the Writ Petition rs 50 disposed of. No order as to costs' Consequently, miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending shall 51 stand closed /ITRUE COPY" Sd,-B.REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER at, HYderabad, State of To, 1 The Principal Secretary' Home Department' Telangana . ra-t^^^^^ot.lrrderabad. 2. The Director General of P6lice, Government of Telangana' Hyderabad + HYderabad'

3.TheAdditionalDirectorGeneralofPolice,cBClD,GovernmentofTelangana' 4. The Commissioner of Police''Rachakonda' Cyberabad' 5.TheDeputyCommissionerofPolice,Bhongir,NalgondaDistrict.

6.TheAssistantCommissionemof.-Police,Yadagirigutta,NalgondaDistrict.

7. The Station House officei, Police Station' Yadagirigutta' Nalgonda District' 8. One CC to SRI M'NAGA RAGHU' Advocate [OPUCI 9. One CC to SC FOR CBCID [OPUCI ,o Hish court ror the state or +ffi"gsr" 1", *rIor","Ey3i8?rfi-osEcurciR' FoR HoME' Hish court for the state of relansana at t' IV3"r""3:li"Sl

12.Two CD CoPies BSR PMK \u .)J ,.',-. , I i I I HIGH COURT DATED i2710612025 c I.r ; I { ORDER WP.No.20182 of 2O1g ?. 1 i{E -s j"i rl o Y o 2 0 stc 20fr * Or: :t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \ A_ (t .))