Chedudupu Pandurangam v. 1. The State of Telangana

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 4. The Station House Officer, Sultan Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad District. 5. Marupudi Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Mshnu Vardhana Rao, Aged about 54.Y-e_ars, Occ.. Business, Rl/o. Flat No.704, F-BIock, Sy.No.143, Trenset Winzs, Nanakramguda, Sherilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in non-conducting the detailed enquiry and non-initiating to arrest the Respondent No.S in Crime No.51 of 2025, dated o1lo3l2o25 for the offences under Section 316, 318,351 B.N.S. on the file of Sultan Bazar Police Station who hatched a plan to grab the house property of the Petitioner and stated the sweet words and executed the registration Sale Deed without paying the sale consideration amount to the Petitioner and abused the Petitioner in filthy language and created panic situation and trying to kill the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to conducathe detailed enquiry and investigation in crime No.51 of 2025, dated 01.03.2025 for the offences under Section 316, 318' 351 B N S' and take the stringent action against illegal activities of the Respondent No 5 who hatched a plan to grab the house property without paying the sale consideration amount to the Petitioner and trying to kill the Petitioner IA NO:1QF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directtheRespondentNo.4toconductthedetailedenquiryandinvestigationin CrimeNo.51of2025'dated01.03.2025fortheoffencesunderSection316,318, 3518.N's.andiakethestringentactionagainstillegalactivitiesofthe Respondent No. 5 who hatched a plan to grab the house property without paying the sale consideration amount to the Petitioner and trying to kill the Petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition i I Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the ResPondent No.5: The Court made the following: ORDER rryle?tz r ' 'l:*,r.rr' THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.23228 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself .

2. This writ petition is filed with following prayer "...d.clare the action of the respondent No.4 in non-conducting the detailed enquiry and non-initiating to arrest tle respondent No.5 in Crime No.51 of 2025, dated 01.03.2025 for the offences under Sections 316, 318, 351 of BNS on the file of Su]tan Bazar Police Station who hatched a plan to grab the house propertjr of the petitioner and stated that sweet words and executed the registration Sale Deed without Paying the sale consideration amount to the petitioner and abused the petitioner in filthy language and created panic situation and trying to kill the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14 15,21 and 3-A of Constitution of India aucl also violation of principles of Natural Justice ard conscquently, directed the respondent No.4 to conduct the detailed enquiry and invcstiSation i-tr Crime No.51 of 2025, dabd 01.03.2025 for the offences under Sections 316, 315, 351 of BNS and take the stringent action agairst illegal activities of respondent No 5 who hatched a plan to grab the house property without paying the sale consideration amount to the Petitioner and trying to kill the petitioner' " '

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader aPPearing for Home has placed the instructions submitted by the SubJnspector of Police, Sultanbazar Police Statiory Hyderabad wherein it is submitted that the pctitioner had todgecl a private complaint before the learned II Additiona[ Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Hyderabad against the respondent No.5. Consequent to 2 filir-rg the said complaint, the trial Court referred the case to respondent No.4, and a case was registered in Crime No.51 of 2025 dated 01.03.2025 for the .'; offences under sections 316,37g,351 of BNS and investigation has been take up- It is further submitted that during the course of investigatiorL notice under scction 94/774 of BNSS was issued on 03.03.2025 to the petitioner/complainant, with a request to produce the relevant documents. A notice under Section 94 / 774 of BNSS was also issued to the Manager Fulletron Fir-rancial Company. It is further submitted that the petitioner/complainant did not produce any relevant documents before the investigating officer and it is revealed that the civil suit vide o.s.No.541 of 2024 is pending before the learned II Additional Chief Judge at City Civil Court, I{yderabad. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 again issued notices under Section 94/lZ4 dated, O1.OS.2O2S, 15.05.2025 and 20 05 2025 to the petitioner to produce the rerevant documents but the petitioncr neither prodtrced any relevant documents nor co_operated with thc investigating agcncv. As such, the above case was closed as lack of evidence vicle procceclings No.37/pRC/SBR-D/2025 d,ated. 22.05.2025 issued by Assistant Commissioner of police, surtan Bazar Divisiory Hyderabad and also final report was fileci bcfore the Hon,ble II Additional Chief Judiciat Magistrate at Hvderabad vide inward No.1015/2025 dated 2g.05.2025.

4. [n that vieu, of ihe matter, since the petitioner could not produce the rele'a.t documerrts as per the notices issued by the investigating officer and : I that the respondents have already filed the final report, the writ petition is J devoid of rnerits, fails and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed- No order as to costs' sD/- sRr r. sRtNrvASA REDD' SISTANT REGISTRAR -) /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. one CC to SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR, Adyocate L9qUc] - i. i;; 6d.'L-cF F-on-Hotr'tE ,nis'tr c6urt for the state of relansana at 3. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUTI BM BM Yx HIGH COURT DATED:1310812025 ORDER WP.No.23228 of 2025 tR( .i o * -,\",, 2 4 tlAR ?rlt[ ,1:: I .-A F -"/' TCI\\--::-r:" :',: i:r\ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G # k"