High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of 1tn6;rlrr"r'ng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated.3'1.07.2024 and consequentially set aside the Memo No.4281- P/Courts. A.12O24, darted.04.10.2024 issued by{lie responclent No.3. OF Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,ihe High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated.31 .o7 .2024 ----7 and stay the operation of the Memo No.4281-PlCouns.A.l2l24, dated.O4.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.3, pending disposal of the writ petition. 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 Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to recall the earlier G.O and to appoint new public prosecutor through separate G.O and one of the Grade- 1 Additional Public Prosecutor by name Aravapalli Phani Kumar presently working in the Hon'ble Vll Additional Sessions Judge court at Nampally and Jurisdictional to my case to argue .the matter and for appoint of through G.O. by the Home department, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.RAGHUNATH, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI VEERA BABU GANDU Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.32515 of 2o24 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Raghunath, Ieatrned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learnccl (]ovcrnmcnt l)lcerrler for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I to 5. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal.

2. This writ petition is iilcd questioning the Memo dated

04.LO.2024 issur:d b.v' rcsporrdt:rrL No.3 re:ge.rrding the enLrustment of Crl.Appeal No.216l202'2 on the filc of VI AMSJ-cunr-Spl.Judge for SC/S'f (POA) Act Court, Secunclcrabad to Smt.P.Sailaja, Public Prosecutor, Prl.Sessions Court, Srrnga Rccldy District as not feasible as the appeal proceedings are i-rt cncling stage.

3. Iracts in brief as stated in the alfidavit are that the petitioner is a defacto complainant in Cr.No. 12-O l20ll registergl before the Tukaramgate l)olice Station. ()n 30.08.20] 1, petitioncr lodged a complaint against Accurscd Nos. 1 ro 6 in which, it is stal.ed that A.1 to A.4 being the principlc vcndors chcatcd pctitioner by inducing to deliver Rs.24,OO,0O0/- tor the proper:ty bearing No.S-7-2227 to 3-7- 228, Sy.No.30 and 40, adrneasuring 340 sq.yds., situated at Kakaguda, Secunderabad u,liich was lrerudulently registered by suppressing certain facts in tavour of Bheemshetty Sreedhar by colluding and committing criminarl c<lnspiracy rn'ith Dinesh Dattar who was Sub-Rcgistrar, Rcd I-lills, llvclt:re.rbald w,t'rich r,vas already sold to / ./ ''.- --{ the petitioner, which caused u,rongful loss to the petitioner. After completion of investigation, Police, Tukaramgate Police Station filed charge shect on 30.12.2011 and thc Court took c:osnizance for the ofences undcr Sections 418,42O,406, 467 and l2O-F\ IPC and Section 82 of Registration Act, 1908 and numbered it as c c.No.lio0/2olr. Subsequently, the then Joint Sub-Registrar (Dinesh Dattar) was impleaded as Accuscd No.6 as per Lhe orders in Crl. M. P.N o.2343 I 20 12.

4. The petitioner's case is that the trial Court acquitted 4.6 inspite of the fact that a petition was filcd lor rectificatiorr of earlier charges by the learned senior Adciitional l)ublic l,rosccuto r uide crl.M.P.No.92l2or7 dated 09.o7.2o19. 'lhc l)rosccurion has filed crl.Appeal No.21612022 through Public Prosecuror. Metropolitan Session Judge court, Nampally, Hvdcrabad to set ersic{c thc judgement of xxll Adcll.chicf Metropolirarr Magistratc, Hyderabad in C.C.No. 162l2Ol7 dated 04.O7.2022 and acquittecl -r.he accused in Cr.No. l2Ol2O1 1, Tukaramgatc Poli<:c Station, Secundr:r'abaed for the said offences. Learned counsel f<>r the petitioner submits that petitioner has good grounds in appeal. The respondi:nt No.5 requested the Public Prosecutor, Metropolitan Session .Juclge tl-rrough letter No.Legal- llOS}Ol2022 d,ated 11.08.2022 to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 04.O7.2022 on the file of X-KII Addl.Chief Metropolitan MagistrzLtc Oourt, Sc<:underabad in C.Ct.No. 162l2Ol7 and basing on the requcsl madc b-r,' rcspondent No.5, rcspondent No.4 I l I -) entrusted petitioner's case Lo one Smt. K. Srivani, Addl.public Prosecutor, Gr.l, IV Addl.Metropolitan Sessions court, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that the said K.Srivani, Addl.public prosecutor, Gr.l, IV Addl.Metr<>politan Sr:ssi<>n .Iurig<: court, H.ydcrabad due to her ill-health was not able to conclucl petitioner's case diligently and further requested Ms.Sailaja, u,ho knovvs about the case and also prepared appeal grounds after thc direction from respondent No.5 uide letter No. i /0590/ 220'22 clatecr I I .og.2o22 and acgordingly petitioner made a request to respondent No.l reqr-resting to appoint Smt.Sailaja, Public Prosecutor working at Mctropoliran Sessions Judge, Nampally and that the next date or- hcaring \\,as on 26.02.2o4. However, respondent No.3 by impugncd Mem. clated 04.Lo.2024 has informed that the appointment of Smt.Saila..la, Public Prosecutor is not feasible, as the appeal proceedings are ar cnding stage. eucstioning the same, the present writ petition is filcd.

5. Learned senior counser appearing for the p&i,iorr.. draws attention of this court to thc Mcmo dated o4.1o.2o24 wherein a request was made to enrrusr criminal Appeal No.2I6 of 2022 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessior-rs Juclgc-cum-Special Judge for sc/ST (PoA) Act court, Secunderabad to Smt. p. Sailaja, public Prosecutor, Prl. Sessions Court, Sangaredd_1,* is not feasible for acceptance as it is in ending stage of saicl appeal proceedings. Learned senior counsel subnriLtcci that no cogenL reasons have been given and the petitioner is a victirn of crirne and ofl'ences are serious in 4 nature. In sttcl-r circumstances, it is just and nccr)ssary to appoint Special public Prosccutor. Learneci scnior counscl further submits that the petitioner on earlier occasion has addressed a letter on 31.07.2024 to the Hon'ble Prl. Home Secretary, Telangana State, Hyderabad narrating the reasons for appointment o[ Smt' Sailaja, as public Prosectrtoruvho is working at Metrop<-llitar-r Sessions Judge Court at Nampally. In the affidavit, filcd in support of I.A'No' 1 of 2025, it is submittecl that the petitioner has requested to rccall the earlier Governmcnt Order i.e., G.O.tRt.No.2379 datccl 16' 11 '2022 and to appoint nert' Public Prosecutor through scparatc G.t) and onc of the Grade-l Adclitional Pubtic Prosecutor by namc Mr. Arzrvapalli Phani Kumar presently working in the []on'blc VII Additional Sessions Judge Court at Nampally also has jurisciiction to thc pctiLioncr's case to argue the matte r and appoint him by r,r'ay o[ Governmcnt C)rder by the Home Departmcnt. [n support of his case, learncd senior counsel refers to a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court bqtw'een ZAHIRA HABIBULLA H. SHEIKH VS. STATE OF. GUJARATI T'T'hCTCiN it U'AS held that it is opcn to the affected persolls to suggest atly name rvhich may also be taken into account in the decision of appointing Public Prosecutor

6. Per contrcr learned Governmcnt Pleadc:r appearing for Home submits that thc appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor is sole discretion of thc Covernment anci that thcre are abrlut 8 Public Prosecutors in Lhe same grade and thc respondent No.4 'uvould ' (zoo+) 4 scc l-i8 5 recommend and respondent No.3 would appoint among thc available Public Prosecutors. 7 Heard learned counsel on cither side ancl perused the record. B. Since the petitioner's apprehension that thc appeal is not being properly conducted, and that the petitioner has a right to suggest the name of Public Prosecutor in terms of the decision cited supra, as held by the Hon'ble Apex court, the petitioner can suggest the name of a Public Prosecutor who is at prcscnt onc arnongst tlic panel of the Public Prosecutors as such Lhcre should n()t be a.-\; embargo in appointing such public prosecuL(>r in diligcnLl_1. pursuing the pending Crl.A.No.216 of 2022.

9. In that view.of the matter, thc Mcmo clarcd 04.10.2O24 issued by respondent No.3 is set aside ancl ttrc responclents arcr directed to consider the appointment of one Grade-l Aclditional Public prosecutor by name sri Aravapa.ili phani KLlmar, prcsently *3rting in vII Additional Sessions .Judge court at Nampallf ,s sugges[ed by the petitioner for expediting the pending crl.A.No.2 l6 of 2022 or if the respondents propose to appoint another l)ubtic prosecuror, the same shall be communicated to the petitioners b.v substantiating the reasons why Sri Aravapalli phani Kurnar, prcscntly wr.rrking in vII Additional Sessions Judge court at Nampally cannot be appointed for the pending Appeal. \ \ ''-' '=-- -j.{ \ \. -- { 6

10. It is also made clcar that sincc the appeal is pcrrding for the last three years and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate that the appointment of Public Prosecutor in crl.Appeal No.216 of 2022 on rhe file of learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions.Ju<lge-cum-special .Iudgc for scis'l (l'}oA) Act court, Secunderabacl shall be completed by the respondents within a period of (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this orcler. With thcse obsr:rvations, '*,rit petition is dilprlse:cl of' No order as to costs- Misccllaneous apptications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ! To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana. .PONNA KRISHNA ANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad, State of

2. The Director General of Police, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 3. The Principle Secretary to the Government, Home (Cq;lrts-A) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The Director of Prosecution, DGP Office'Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

5. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 6. Ong CC to SRI VEERA BABU GANDU, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the-r State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies BSR PMK HIGH COURT DATED: 0311112025 ORDER WP.No.32515 ot 2024 .: l.r^ :, , 2{l0lM t l Spnrc i I 6 DTSPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,-" WITHOUT COSTS $