High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR of 20.25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3. with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. Notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the foltowing prayer:- o...declare the in action of respondent No.3 who has continuouslg ouerlnoked the petitioners euidences who is reeiuing repeated lik threats and extortion from the respond.ent No.4 and henchmen and also statements related tp the recurring and continuous offenses being perpetrated by tfle respondent No.4 euen subsequent to tlrc registration in Yellareddg police station, Kamareddg district in FIR No.138/2A25 d.qted. 14.07.2025 under tuttons 75(2), 35t(2), 292 BNS 67- A ITA Act, 2O08. T?E anduct of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in failirq to progress utith the inuestigation to compile a cLrurge sheet uiththe releuant appropriate sections of law and neglecting to seqtre euidence witnesses and" record statements linked to Crime No.I38/2O25 is deemed @s iltegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and 2 contrary to settled principLes of laut ConseEtentlg direct respondent Nos.2 .and' 3 to and9rct a tlwrough inuestigation and. to consider all euidences produced ba ttrc petitictner in fiting charge shebt against tfle responcients irt arcordqnce uiththe law..!

3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner contacted respondent No.4 in the month of April, knowing him as motivational speaker. 'Ihereafter, respondent No.4 gained petitioner's trust and used to make her video calls and sencl her his nude videos and also forced her to sent her nude videos and photos. When the petitioner directly contacted respondent No.4 and discussed about the marriage, respondent No.4 used to avoid her. Upon enquiry, petitioner got to know that respondent No.4 is rvorking as School Headmaster, Yellareddy Mandal and when the petitioner confrontcd respondent No.4, he cursed and threatened her saying that his wife would die if he marries the petitioner. Thereafter, due to continuous harassment of respondent No.4, petitioner approached Bhadarachalam Police Station on O4.O7.2O25 and narrated the entire sequence along with documenteul, sri6ence. On 07.07.2025, petitioner rvent to Police Station again and was compelled to a compromise wherein respondent No.4 agreed to pay compensation of Rs.10,OO,OOO/- as settlement, however, thereafter, respondent No.4 agreed to 3 setfle for an amount of Rs.9,OO,OOO/- and forced her to sign the settlement papers. It is further submitted that respondent No.S forced the petitioner to withdraw the case. Respondent No.3 in collusion with respondent No.4 has closed the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has placed a copy of instructions issued by Sub-lnspector of Police, Yellareddy Police Station, Kamareddy District stating that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, respondent No.3 registered a crime in Cr.No.L38/2O25 under Sections 75(21, 351(2), 292 BNS and Section 67,{ of IT Act against respondent No.4. During the course of investigation, as per instructions of higher officials, as the IT Act cases cannot be investigated by officer below the rank of Inspector, the Sub Inspector of Police handed over the lile to Circle Inspector for further investigation. The Investigating Officer tried to secure the presence of the victim for recording her statement but in vain. Thereafter, on

05.09.2025, the petitioner herself came to the Police Station and her statement was recorded by lady Officer Kum.G.Asha with videography. Based on the statement of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer added Section 75 (3), 76 and 77 of BNS t I t I !- ! 1: I I 4 including already existing Sections 75(2l,,351(2), 292 BNS and filed a memo before Junior First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy. Therefore, the allegation that respondent No.3 is not conducting investigation based on the evidence adduced by the petitioner is false and baseless. Along with tJle instructions, a copy of FIR No.138/2O25 ha-s also been enclosed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that if the petitioner furnishes sufficient evidence or documents, the same would be considered for further investigation.

5. In that view of the matter, this rrit petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitironer to approach the Police Station on Monday i.e., 22.09.2025 at 11.00 AM and produce additional evidence or any materials papers in support of her complaint, and if the same is produced, the Investigating Officer shall consider the s€rme for further course of action strictlv in accordance to law.

6. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGfSTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER ,/TRUE COPY/I To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, The State Of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Telangana.

3. ffice, Karna Reddy Sp Office Road, Station Yellareddy, Telangana 503122

4. One CC to tVl/s. Dr. [I. MADHAVI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High 6. Two CD Copies BN TKS Afy \ * I ,.,, ,* : '; :, I* & 1r i. f t 7, iF j , t &r :i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:19/09/2025 q. s ORDER WP.No.28454 of 2A25 {HE SI' t Li (J 0 I JAN 202[ t * reO r // DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1q ?n