Sri. Mohd Jafer Khan v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed for non-
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri. Mohd Jafer Khan S/o Late Mahboob Khan., Occ Retd Govt. servant, Rl/o H.No. 1 3-5-422, Karwan, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Hyderabad.
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, A.C. Guards Hyderabad.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Asifnagar, Hyderabad 5. The Station House Officer, Tappachabutra Folice Station, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or directrons more particutarly one in th6 nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in NOT initiating investigation into the said Crime No- 103 of 2013 for the offences under section 420, 448, 506 R/w 34 IPC is biased, illegal, arbitrary and against the rules guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to transfer the crime No- 103 of 2013 dated- 11-06-2013 to the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad for the offences under section 420, 448, 506 R/w 34 of IPC and Arms Act 156(3) Cr.PC or. ,ny oth", investigating authority LA. NO: 1 OF 201 4(WP MP . NO: 22834 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to direct the respondents to transfer the crime No. 103 of 2013 dated: 11-06-2013 to the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, for the offences Uls 420,448, 506 R/w 34 IPC and Arms Act 156(3) Cr.PC to the central Crime Station, Hyderabad in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. C. VIJAYA LAXMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER _=--- I I I ! THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. i82O6 of 2OL4 ORDER: No representatiorr oir behatf of the petition€r. Even on earlier occasion oo 17.09.2025, ther'e was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and as such, the nratter was directed to be listed on 1a.O9.2025 under the caption "For Dismissal" as a last chance to the petitioner. Despite the matter being listed under the dismissal caption on 17 .O9.2O25, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not having any inclination to prosecute this case, as such, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the Writ Petition for non-prosecution.
Operative part
2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution. There shal1 be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous appiications, if any, shall qlqnd clgse{ SD/. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, TJ
1. One CC to Ms. C. VIJAYA LAXMI, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOlr/E ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
3. Two CD Copies B l\,4 HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 .-tl rti: ; I 2BJAiliM J... ,) l -:i '\ t I '') * ORDER WP.No.182OG of 2014 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS I I
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed for non-
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.