Soma Padma v. 1. The State of Telangana

5. Smt. Andamma, W/o, Venkaiah, Age Major, Occ House wife, Rl/o. H.No.9-81 , 6. Kiran, S/o. Venkaiah, Age tr/ajor, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No.9-81, Seethapuram, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District. Seethapuram, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda Drstrict. 7. Kranthi Kumar, S/o. Venkaiah, Age Major, Occ Business, RJo. H.No.9-81, - Seethapuram, lvliryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District. '. 8. Smt. Swathi, W/o. Koushik, Age tVlajor, Occ House wife, Rl/o. H.No.9-81, Sedthapuram, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

9. Koushik, S/o not known to the petitioner, Age Major, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.9-81 , Seethapuram, Miryaiaguda Town, Nalgonda 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the .respondents no.2 and 3 in not taking any action basing on a complaint filed by the petitioner, dated 4-7-2017 and the contents of the said complaint clearly constitutes the offences punishable under sections 354 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as against the respondents no.4 to g, which anr cognizable and non- bailable offences, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal; null an( void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles . 4, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and also violative of the provisions : criminal procedure code. consequently, direct the respondents no.2 and 3 to t rke necessary action basing on a complaint filed by the petitioner, dated 4 ', . 2O17, against the respondent no.4 to g by registering a FIR ln accordance wi I Law l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 35267 O F 20171 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the ;rrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High co.,1 may be pleased to direct the respondents no.2 and 3 to take necessary action basing on a complaint filed by the petitioner, dated 4-7 -2017, against t.r l respondent no.4 to 9 by registering a FIR in accordance with Law Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI M. SRINIVAS, / cp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4tog: -- The Court made the following: OROER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETIT ION N 0.28377 0F 2017 ORDER: This writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: ",..fo lssue an order or direction more pafticularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondenfs Nos.2 and 3 in not taking any action basing on a complaint filed by the petitioner, dated 04.07.2017 and the contents of the said comptaint clearly consfilufes the offences punishable under sections 354 of tpC and under section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 198g as against the respondents Nos.4 to g, which are cognizable and non-bailable offences, is nothing but arbilrary, i egal, nu and void.and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of tndia and also violative of the provisions of Criminal procedure code. Consequently, direct the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to take necessa(y action basing on a complaint filed by the petitioner, dated 04.07-2017, against the respondenl Nos.4 to 9 by registering a FIR ln accordance with Law and to pass.. ."

2. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. [r/.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to take any action on the petitioner's representation daled 04.07.2017 by not registering a First lnformation Repo( (FlR), the I ?. NTR,J w.P.No.28377 of 2Ol7 petitioner has been constrained to approach thir; Court seeking appropriate directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Hcr re, on the basis of written instructions received from the concerned I llice authorities, submits that the allegations made by the petitioner wer : duly examined. It is stated that on 25.08.2017, upon consideration of tr : contents of the petitioner's representation daled 04.07.2017, a case ,r as registered as Crime No.173 oI 2017 under Sections 354, 323, an I 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for r; rort, "lPC") and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes ar d the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'l ;C/ST Act"). The learned Government Pleader further submits that the natter has been taken up for investigation by the competent authority n accordance with law.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the -,arned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and the developmentl; reported therein, it is evident that the petitioner's grievance pertainir I to the alleged inaction of the police in registering the FlR, has sincr been effectively redressed by the respondents. The concerned polic: authorities have 1 3 I{TR.J W.P.No-28377 of 2Ol7 acted upon the petitioner's representation and registered a criminal case, which is under investigation.

7. lt may be noted that once the grievance regarding non- registration of FIR stands remedied through subsequent registration and investigation, the writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of lndia, (2007) 6 SCC 171, and Sakiri Vasu y. Sfafe of lJttar pradesh, (2008)2 SCC 409. B. ln view of the above, as the cause for filing the present writ petition no longer survivbs, this Court finds no reason to adjudicate the matter further. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT RE-GISTRAR ...(7 SECTION OFFICER To, l One CC to SRI K. VENUMADHAV' Advocate [OlyCt - i. i;; d6.i"-GC rbn nOrr,re-,nigh'Court for the State of Telangana at 3. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUT] B IVI GJPd- HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 ORDER WP.No.28377 of 2017 l>- fLir: ( R oY : 'l 28 r ltlfr J(r -) c.r) + * \ '\?.5s.,n'. \:___- _ * ^'.:,c:r z DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS I\FRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS s{ ' ..\N6 {a