25935 OF 2o2s 1 v. Prabhakar, S/o V Rajesh Aged about - 25 years, Occ- Pvt Employee, R/o 2

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 an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, particularly in the nature. of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not conducting a proper investigation and failing to file the final report/chargesh eet in Crrme No. l63 of 2025, dated 01-08-2025, of P.S. Kulsumpura, Hyderabad, and falsely arraying the petitioners as accused, as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and direct the 3rd respondent to forthwith complete the investigation, entrust it to any other competent officer other than Sub-lnspector G. Naveen Kumar, and ensure that the final report/cha rge sheet is filed in the concerned court without further delay and pass any other order(s) or grant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders drrecting the 3rd Respondent herein to forthwith complete the investigation in Crime No. 163 of 2025. dated 01-08-2025, of P.S. Kulsumpura, Hyderabad, by filing the final report or chargesheet under the approprtate provisions of law, and also in pursuance of crime No. 16:l (i 2025, dated 01-08- 2025, of Kanchanbagh Police Station, Hyderabad, T.S., pe rding disposal of the main writ Petition and to restrain the Respondents from su r rnoning or harassing the Petitioners without any valid reason until the filing of th. ;hargesheet. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMED ZAKI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ( THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.25935 of2025 This r.vrit petition is iiled seckir-rg thc follor'ving praver: ". ..declaring lhe inactiorr of the resportclents tn not conductinq a proper inueshqation a'n d failing to Jtle the frnol report/ chargle sheet in Cnme No.163 of 2025 dated 01 OB'2025 of P. S. Ku Lsumpur a, H y d e r ct b atl ct r r d fal s el g ct r ra g i ng the petitioners as accus^ ed as illeqal, arltttrarg and unjust arLd direct respondent 1{o'3 to forthutith complete the inuestiqatior\ enttust it to ana other competent officer other than Stt b- Inspector C.Naueen Kuntar ottd ensure that the finat report/ charge sheet is filed in the concerned Court uithout further delau und pass anty other orders or grant. . . "

2. Heard learnecl counsel [or the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleaclcr for Home alppearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3. With their cor-rsent, this rvrit petition is taken up for disposal.

3. The facts of the case rn brief are that the Police P.S.Kulsumpura sLrmm()ned tl-re Petitioners ar-rd inqttired rvhether they have atterldecl an-y mzrrrietge [r'ttrction or \ \ 2 marriage procession on 31.O7 .2025 at Jiya: ,rda. As the petitioners have not attended any marriage fr r <:tion on the said date, they have denied the same. :rwevcr. the respo nden t / Police stated that thev had regli: r:recl I'-[R in Cr-No. I 63 12025 ancl had mentioned their n r rres alleging that they had danced with swords during t.,c rn.rrriage ccremony, subsequently, the respondent / ' r licc issued noticc unrlcr Section 35 of BNSS stating tlr t petrtiorrers I presence bc secured whenever required. It : thc r--asc of the petitioners that responder-rt/ Police neil l r r cond ncted an\/ proper cnquir_y regarding the alleged < r rrmrssion of offcncc nor secured the petitioners' presen,' ' to ascertain the facts. Fr-rrther, the resporrdent/ Police has rot discloscd the larct that in u,hose marriage, the petiti,r rers' danced rt,ith swolcls. Questioning the same, thr' )rescl)t rvrit petition is filcd

4. The Sub-lnspector of Police, I(ulsL rrpura Police Station has placed a copy of instructions tlr - r,'tg11 lc'arreed Assistant (]overnment Pleader for Home stl iltg thitt thc Assistalt Sr,rb Inspector of Police, PS [(ulsr r npura along q'itl'r tu,o ot her Constables ri hile performing; r ight dr.rtv on -. I la/ 3

31.O7.2025 at about 22.30 hours noticed that a marriage procession was performing near Gopi Hotel and saw t'"vo persons playing u.ith sq'ords. When tl-re-r, tried to catcl-r them, the_y escaped. Basccl ol-l tl'rc szrid incident, respondent No.3/Police registered FtR in Cr.No. 163/2O25 under Sections 25(1 B)(b) of Arms Act on 01 .O8.2025 against the petitioners. The respondent/ Police conclucted further investigation and notices r,rncler Section 35(3) oi BNSS rvere issued. It is also sr-rbnritted that petitit-rncrs were earlier involved in feu, crimes. [t is further submittecl that the matter is under investigation for somc more: witnesses and collection of evidence and CC'IC Footages.

5. In that vieu, of tl're matter, since tl-tc respondent/ Police have alreadv registcred FIR in Cr.No.163/2O25 and that the petitioners are not cooperating with the enquiry and that the matter is undcr investigation, the respondent/ Police is directed to lile charge sheet as expeditiously as possible. Needless to state that petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry 4

6. With tl-rc above observations, this u rr petition IS disposccl of NIisr:cllaneotrs petitions, pcnding, if anr sl-rall slarrd closcrl. Hou'e vr:r. there shall bc no order as to c r sts SD/. T. OSMAN ALI BAI G .4.'l R STANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY' \ I \ ,SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary Home Department' State of Teli ngana' Secretariat Hvderabad, T.S. it"trrrit.itrer of Police, Hyderabad Commissiorar rle, Hyderaoad TS fn. Station House Officer, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad- 1S' One CC to SRI MOHAMT\,IED ZAKI Advocate [OPUo i*" cc.i" -ci ron Houe, High Court for the State c 'Telangana [oUT] Two CD Copies To,

2. 3. 4. 5 6 CHR BS ,o+l i I HIGH COURT DATED:01 l0gl2025 ORDER W.P.No.25935 of 2025 (- o(-) 1i IA B tiB;ll'/6 / c:t p'rJc z c) !. r+, I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $t..\* -b.t)