High Court · 2025

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 Writ or Writs or Orde(s) more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the act of the respondents in not passing any order on the representation dated 17.07.2013 of the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. LA. NO: 1 OF 2013( WPMP. NO: 32631 OF 2013) 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 issue lnterim directions to stay all further proceedings in Cr.No.27l2006lCC .::7 No.112 of 2007 U/s. 147, 149, 427, 1O9, 114, 295, 153(A'. Section 3 & 4 PDPP Act of P.S. Hussaini Alam on the file of Hon'ble C.lrl.,4. Court, Nampally, Hyderabad pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SRIDHAR BHUVANAG I l, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI .TUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26375 of 2O13 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Venkata Malur, learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not passing any order on the representation dated 17.O7.2013 of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had made a representation dated 17 .O7 .2013 with regard to. the corrupt activities of Station House Ofhcer, Hussaini Alam Police Station, against deliberate non-obtaining mandatory prosecution permission in C.C.No.1 12 of 2OO7 on the frle of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. l,earned counsel further submitted that the said representation to grant prosecution permission to prosecute the then Station House Officer, Hussaini AIam Police Station, ald ACP Charminar and others, involved in protecting the accused in C.C.No. ll2 of 2OO7 and also to initiate 2 appropriate departmenta-l measures against thc itation [louse Ofl-rcer, ACP-Charminar including the public prosecu ( rs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further srr r rittcrl th.rt lhe de-facto complainant in C.C.No. ll2 of 2OO7, polrc r officials and othcrs, r,"ere being m:rnaged by the accused by abusi: ; their position as Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative n ssembly and Corporators and accordingly, the police officials delilr, rately filed the ch:rrgc-shcet in C.C.No. 112 of 2OO7 before the lezrr r :C trial Cl()urt, knowing fully well that the offences therein includt >ifences r.rnder Ser:tion 153-A and 295 of IPC which requires milrtdir ( :/ sancti()n for prosecut.lon ald these corrupt act is due to unofll: rl gratihcation and corruption involved and thus, the petitioner lequesterl for immediate investigation in the said matter.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter affrdavit, entrrt v denying the allegations leveled by the petitioner in the writ pcL ion or irr the representation dated 77.O7.2013. However, it is statej that pursuant to the representation made by the peLitioner, the Ins: rr;tor of Police, Hussaini Aiam, I{yderabad, sent a report to the Cc nmissioner of Police, Hyderabad, on O8.O8.2013, requesting him to z ldress a letter to the Secretar\. to Government, Law (LA&J H c ne Courts-B) Department, Hyderabad, for obtaining permission t( ) prosecute the accused persons under Section 153-4 of IPC in cc rnection with 3 C.C.No. 112 of 2OO7. However, after perusing the report, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, addressed the Principal Secrelary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad uide leLter dated 07.10.2013 requesting him to pass orders according permission to prosecute the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in Crime No.27 of

2006. Thus, respondent authorities had already taken action upon the representation made by.the petitioner, by sending proposals to the Government for seeking prosecution orders against the accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.27 of 2OO7.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents has furnished written instructions dated 12.09.2O25 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hussaini Alam Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein it is revealed that pursuant to the registration of a suo moto case in Crime No.27 of 2006 against the political leaders - accused Nos. I to 7, investigation was already conducted and a charge-sheet was also fled uide C.C.No. 112 of 2OO7. Subsequently, the case was tralsferred to XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court uide C.C.No.830 of 2075, which ended in acquittal by its orders dated 15.02.2018.

7. In tJle light of the said development, this Court is of the opinion that the relief sought in the Writ Petition has worked itself out and nothing survives for further adjudication in the present proceedings. 4 a. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismisse c as infructuous. However, it rs open to the petitioner, if so advise,l to pursue any other remedy available in law against the judgrr r I t of acquittal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicati I rs, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. JAYASREE :i STANT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to SRI V.VENKATA MAYUR' Advocate 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOtrilE, High Court for the S ate of Telangana at P () Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies BSR BM. Yk' HIGH COURT DATED: 2210912025 ORDER WP.No.26375 of 2013 \' ;lE S Y ( fl1 -z ! I , * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS e/' (9 Y^* \-9