Mr. Sunkara Naresh v. The State of Telanagana

of the constitution of lndia and consequently this Honble oourt mab be plead loy declare the FIR Nc, 483 ot 2025, dated 04.09.2025 on a complaint given by the 3rd respondent uncler Sections 318(4), 318(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharativa Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the petitioner wherein he was arrayed as accused no.3 as null and voi:1. 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 Courl may be p{eased to stay all further proceedings in FIR No.4B3 of 2025, dated 04.09 2025 registered at 2nd respondent prolice station against the petitioner on a complaint given by the 3rd respondent under Sections 318(4), 318(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BALAIAH.B Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI MAHESWAR RAJIV, GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER 4 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.2700'l ot 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in registering FIR No.4B3 o'f 2025, as arbitrary and unconstitutional and further to declare the complaint against the petitioner as null and void

2. Heard Sri Balaiah B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Maheswar Rajiv, learned Government Pleader for Home

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner discharges services to various authorities and that they would pay him on taking his legal advice and that the de facto complainant has utilized his services and has not paid, and just to escape the said liability, she filed a false complaint against him. He further submitted that the HYDRA Officials have called the petitioner to settle the matter which itself shows the wrongful involvement of the authorities, which is not at all required. He therefore, submitted that the complaint itself is false. The police have not followed the due process of law in registering the complaint and without following any 1>rocedure under Section 173(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha -/ I I I -{ l 2 -I EfD.J W.P. No.27OO1 ot 2025 Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), they are trying to apprehend the petitloner He therefore, prayed to declare the action of the respondents as unconstitutional and also to declare the complaint to be null and void.

4. Learned Government pleader for Home has submitted that the contents of the compliant do point out the allegations against the petitioner herein. lt is alleged that one Chaitanya Pannala came to the office of the Commissioner, HYDRA and lodged a petition stating that she is the owner of the open land and that l\4is. Vertex Developers had unlawfully laid a 150 feet road through her property without any prior permission from her and the Commissioner, HYDRA, endorsed the same to the ACP, HYDRA to enquire and I report and that as a part of enquiry, it came to know that said Chaitanya Pannala had discussed about the encroachment issue with her cousin Mtr. Praveen and her cousin introduced the petitioner stating that he is a legal advisor and that he would take care of the issue. The petitioner introduced his friend Chandu Srinivas stating that he has good connections with the HYDRA offlcials and inturn, the said Chandu Srinivas communicated with her over phone and assured that he 'ryill manage with the HYDRA. Believing that, she has given amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs to her cousin Praveen and Praveen .--/ 't 3 ETO,J w.P. No-27001 ot 2025 told her that he will hand it over to the petitioner herein. lt is further alleged that in the last week of June, 2025, the petitioner went to her house located at Maheshwaram and asked her to pay the remaining amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs, but she postponed to give him the money as the said day was Amavasya and on the following day, the petitioner sent a person to her house for collecting the money and at that time, she made a phone call to the petitioner and confirmed that the person came to her house was sent by the petitioner only and thus, believing the said words, she has handed over the total cash of Rs.30.00 lakhs to him. With the said allegations, the ACP, HYDRA has addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, Pahadi Shareef Police Station, Rachakonda, requesting him to take legal action against the individuals mentioned therein i.e. Praveen, Sunkari Naresh and Chandu Srinivas. The petitioner herein is accused No.3

5. Learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that the allegations in the complaint do point out against the petitioner herein and the said allegations need to be investigated into and as the investigation is in progress, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. ln reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter pertains to a private aflair of an individual. lf at all the individual concerned has any grievance, she might have I I 4 ETD,J W.P. No.27OO1 of 2025 .- \-=-1 \] lodged tlre complaint directly with the police, but in the present case, the ACP HYDRA has lodged the complaint, which is not correct and that the :uthorities should not create the litigation and the HYDRA Officials ,lannot entertain any complaint on private properties. He further slbmitted that the petitioner is an Advocate and the complaini:nt has no /ocus standi to lodge the complaint and therefore, prays to declare the FIR as null and void. 7 Perused the record. B. A perusal of the complaint discloses serious allegations against the petitioner. The alleged collusion among the three individuals and extracting the money from the victim needs to be investigated into. The allegations in the complaint are serious in nature.

9. With regard to formation of HYDRA, G.O Ms. No.99 dated 19.072024 was issued, which discloses that the HYDRA is a dedicated Agency for planning, organizing, coordinating and implementing the measures for preparedness and prevention of urban disasters for ,:oordination with other State and National Agencies for prompt response and rescue operations in any disaster situation or disaster that may arise in this region. J... l1 J l I 5 ETD,J w.P. No.27001 of 2025

10. ln the present case, the allegations in the complaint point out that the petitioner in collusion with other accused had taken amount from one Chaitnya Pannala stating that they would get resolved the issue of her land being encroached by ttI/s. Vertex Developers, with HYDRA Officials. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said allegation pertains to the amount taken by the accused from the said lady on the pretext of resolving her dispute, does not fall within the purview of the duties entrusted to HYDRA. That, if at all she has lodged the complaint for resolving her problem with the HYDRA, they could have acted upon with regard to the asset protection, disaster management, logistic support or other functions as enshrined in the G.O.[/ls. No.99. He further contended that the present complaint does not fall under any of these definitions. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the HYDRA officials to initiate a complaint against the petitioner herein ln case, if the alleged victim i.e. Chaitanya Pannala is aggrieved in any manner by the acts of the petitioner herein, she should knock the doors through appropriate remedies according to law

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Cou( in Mohamood Ali & Ors. v. .- 6 ETD,J W.P. No.27001 of 2025 State of U.P. and othersl contending that the court exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to get the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the grounds that such proceeding are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more close and that if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Sectit-.n 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation of the case.

12. l-he contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint must have been lodged by the alleged victim ie. Chaitanya Pannala and that the HYDRA official is no way concerned with lodging the complaint. A careful perusal of the complaint reveals that the ACP, !-IYDRA has lodged a complaint with the Sl of Police, Pahadshareef Police Station, alleging that the petitioner along with other accused have not only deceived the woman by taking Rs.50.00 Iakhs from her trut also attempted to defame the name of the HYDRA by falsely claiming that her land issue would be resolved in exchange 'Crl.A No.2341 0f 2023 .ated 08.08.2023 j 7 ETD,J w.P. No.27O01 of 2025 for payment to HYDRA officials. Since the petitioner and other accused have allegedly taken the name of the HYDRA officials while inducing the victim to pay money of Rs.50.00 lakhs, the ACP, HYDRA has lodged the complaint. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the police are proceeding with the case without there being any compliance of Section 173(3) of BNSS, as per the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Home, the investigation is on its nascent stage and that the police bound by the due process of law and they shall abide by the legal principles. The offences alleged are under Sections 318(4) and 318(2) of BNS. The ingredients of Sections 318(4) and 318(2) of BNS are pointed out as per the allegations leveled in the compliant. Thus, the truth or otherwise of the allegations are the subject of trial. Therefore, the complaint cannot be declared to be null and void. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, the same is liable to be d ism issed 13 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA AS ISTANT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRt BALA|AH.B, Advocate tOpUCl 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies Al/ 3 BSR I HIGH COUR T DATED:1910912025 't ... I ri t'- :i r.. i) .-) ln oct mzl ORDER WP.No.27001 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS / /z- /0 /to //5