The High Court · 2025

All 7 to 10 are the R/o. G-1 , Srinivasam Apartment, Vindu Hotel Line, Chandanagar, Hyderabad. l l.Singareddy Atchi reddy, S/o. S. Gurava Reddy, Age- 54 yrs, Occ- Pvt. Employee.

12. Singareddy l\,4adan reddy, Sio. S. Gurava Reddy, Age- 50 yrs, Occ- Pvt. Employee. l3.Singareddy Gurava reddy, S/o. S. Kasi Reddy, Age- 6ii All 1 1 to 13 are the R/o. vindu Hotel line, Chandanaga . 14. lrla Sethamma, W/o. Late. Atchi Reddy, Age 58 yrs, (); /'s, Occ- Agriculture. Flyderaba I ; Agriculture

15.lrla Savithramma, W/o. Seetharam Reddy, Age 64 yrs ):c- Agriculture

16. lrla Varahal Reddy, S/o. Late. Kutumbha Reddy, Age li( 'y'rs, Occ- Agriculture

17. Singareddy Abhimanyu Reddy, S/o. Late. Venkat Red,j Agriculture.

18. Singareddy Anil Reddy, S/o Late Venkat Reddy, Age- I Agriculture- , Age- 38 yrs Occ- 2 yrs Occ

19. P. Vijay Reddy, S/o. Late. Nagi Reddy, Age- 31 yrs Occ Pv.t. Employee. All '14 to'19 are the R/o. Ganapavaram Village, Kodad l? l\4. Suryapet Dist. Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lr i circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thc pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly ()l of mandamus to declare the in action of 3rd resc I custody/arrest of 4th to 19th respondents for last more thz referred case Vide Crime No.365/2018 for the U/s307,448,450,506,149,193,RlW12O b lPC,where as delaying investigation without following any procedure un J arbitrary, high handness and against to the principles -. violative of Sec 154 and 156(3) Cr.P.C and Article '1 ,i Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd F.e s investigation as early as possible. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 ...RESPONDENTS a praying that in the High Court may be er in the nature of writ rdent in taking the r 2months in a court ;ffences punishable the 3rd respondent )i statu[es as illegal, natural ju stice and 16 and 21 of the londent to complete Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c i the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr: the 3rd respondent to arrest the 4th to 19th respondent for, vide crime No.365/2018 for ofr( Uls.307,448,450,506 149,193,R4//'1 20 b IPC pending disp: lu m stances stated in 7 be pleased to direct ustodial interrogation ;al of the above writ punishable petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JANARDHANA REDDY PONAKA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 19:---- The Court made the following: ORDER 7 I I I l i THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N.TUl., \FlAMJl WRIT PETITION No.29505 OF 201{ ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of O ,nstitution of lndia seeking the following rellef "... [o issue a writ order or direction more pafticula nature of writ of mandamus to declare the itl respondent in taking the custody/arrest of 4th to 1gh for last more than 2months in a couri refered cas No.365/2018 for the offences punishable U/s.307, < 149, 193 R/W 120 b IPC where as the 3rd respcj investigation without following any procedure un('c illegal arbitrary high handness and against to th t natural justice and violative of Sec 1 54 and 1 56(.) Adicle 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the ld Respondent to comptete investigatirt, posslb/e and to pass. ..." lv one in the ction of 3rd respondents : Vide Crime 48, 450, 506, lent delaying . sfarutes as principles of Cr.P.C. and ;onsequently as ea y as \ \

2. Heard Mr. Janardhana Reddy Ponaka, learn€ I counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Gove r rment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.'1 to 3.

3. None appeared for the petitioner

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Hc me submits that, during the pendency of proceedings in Crime No t65 of 20'lB, the accused preferred a petition for quashment in Crl.p. ,1o.6139 of 2022, and this Court, by order dated 16.11.2022, quashe(l the proceedings. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner no long€ - survives. 2 NTR,J W.P.No.29505 of 20la ,,.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The petitioner contends that respondent No.3 failed to take the accused in Crime No.365 of 2018 into custody despite the lapse of two months from the registration of the crime and seeks a direction to expedite the investigation in accordance with law. However, the development reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home makes it clear that the crime itself has been quashed by this Court at the instance of the accused. ln view of the quashment of the proceedings, nothing further remains for consideration in this petition.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASSI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYil TION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri Janardhana Reddy Ponaka, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies TJ TKS HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 ORDER WP.No.29505 of 2018 r;) ,.J (-) 05 \14 i , I F: i i * .(ir ) TOt .-.y* -_7' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS a "u,t +