B Rama v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 ...RESPONDENTS pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus delclaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not investigating crime no. 94 of 2016 of Kataram P.S., Karimnagar District presently Jayashanker Bhupalpally District which was registered under section 174 of Cr.P.C even though the petitioner expressed suspicious over the death of her husband, inspite of the representati-on submitted to the 2nd respondent on 13.03.2017 expressing doubt over the respondents 6 to 11 and without even considering the final opinion of the doctor which clearly says that the death is due to asphycia due to compression over the neck, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust,.abuse of process of law and against the . criminal jurisp,ru6snce and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to conduct the investigation in Cr.No.94 of 2016 on the file of P.S. Kataram, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District on proper lines by taking into consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 13.03.2017 and the final opinion given by the doctor on 28.12.2016 and further direct the respondents to take appropriate lega! action against the respondents 6 to 11 in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2O17(WPtl,lP. NO: 26416 OF 20171 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 res;rondents 2 to 5 to conduct the investigation in Cr.No.94 of 2016 on the file of P.S Kataram, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District on proper lines by taking into considerartion of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 13.03.2017 and the final opinion given by the doctor on 28.12.2016 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for tlhe Petitioner: SRI K. UDAY K'UMAR, REPRESENTING SRI S. SURENDER REDDY Counsel for tlhe Respondent Nos.l to 5: GP FOR HOME Gounsel for tlhe Respondent Nos.6 to 11:-- The Court made the iollowing: ORDER /11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief. .....fo issue a writ, order or Direction more particularly a wit in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not investigating crime No. 94 of 2016 of Kataram P.5., Kaimnagar District, presently Jayashanker Bhupalpally District, which was registered under secfion 174 of cr.P.c., even though the petitioner expres.sed susplcious over the death of her husband, in spite of the representation submitted to the ld respondent on 13-0g-2017 expressing doubt over the respondenfs 6 fo 11 and without even considering the final opinion of the doctor which ctearty says fhaf the death is due to asphyxia due to compression over the neck, as iltegal, arbitrary, uniust, abuse of process of law and againsf fhe criminal iurisprudence and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to conduct the investigation in Cr. No. 94 of 2016 on the file of P.S. Kataram, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, on proper tines by taking into consideration of the reprcsentation submitted by the petitioner on 13-03-2017 and the final opinion given by the doctor on 28-12-2016 and further direct the respondents to take appropiate legal action against the respondenfs 6 fo 11 in the interest of iustice and pass such other order or orders..."

2. Heard Mr. K. Uday Kumar, learned counsel, representing Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Srinivas, *d 2 IVI&/ IV.P. No. 21492 o12017 leamed Assistant Government pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 3. Leamed counser for the petitioner submits that as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 hav'e failed to properry investigate crime No. 94 of 2016 of Kataram Police station, Karimnagar District, pertaining to the suspicious death of the petitioner's husband, and have not taken action on the petitioner's representertion dated 13.03.2017, the present writ petition has been fired seeking aprpropriate directions from this Court. 4. Learned Assistant Government preader for Home submits that the said crime was dury investigated. He contends that the suspicious death of the petitioner's husband was initialy registered under section 174 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, and, upon the petitioner,s representation, the same was altered to an offence under section 302 0f the lndian Penal Code, 1g60. However, as the investigation did not disclose any materiar evidence indicating the invorvement of any suspect, a final report was fired on25-11.2021 before the Judiciar Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, classiffing the case as ,undetected,. Hence, it is submitted lhat nothing further remains for adjudication in the present matter. I have perused the material available on record.

5. 6' of suspiciorls death, which was later altered to Section lt is rrot in dispute that the crime was initiaily registered as a case .la 302 tPC. 5 A]TR,/ IV.P. N0.21492 of 2017 According to the respondents, the investigation did not reveal any incriminating material against the suspects, and a final report was accordingly filed before the competent Magistrate. In the record, except for the petitioner's general allegation that the investigation was not properly conducted, no specific facts, instances, or material have been placed on record to substantiate any allegation of bias, mala fides, or procedural irregularity on the part of the investigating agency.

7. ln these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter, as the investigation has culminated in a final report filed before the learned Magistrate. However, the petitioner's rights are reserved to avail appropriate remedies available in law before the Magistrate concerned, if aggrieved by the filing of the final report, by placing relevant material or seeking further investigation as permissible under law. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ,.,.- '._- :i: : : . T.SRINIVASA REDDY III=GIFTii'lfil //TRUE COPY'/ OFFICER To,

1. The PrincipalSecretary, The State of Telangana, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Bhupalpally, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. 3. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Katararn Division, Kataram, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. c^*L- --

4. The Circle lnspector of Police, The Gircle lnspector of Police, Kataram Circle, Katararn, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District

5. The Station House Officer, Kataram P.S., Kataram, Jayashankar Bhupalpally / District.

6. One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two COs to GP for Home,.High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderacad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies TJ PSK &^J. / \ \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 \ \ ? .J 1 'rtE S 2 7 Fi:8 7q7fi * ) ORDER WP.No.21492 ot 2017 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU COSTS \ \ fr{c, zqlA*