Dr. M. Saarah Sandilya @ Madhavi v. The State Of Telangana

Petition under Artble 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pf.r."O to it.re any writ orda. o, direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus dlclaring the in action of the respondent 2 to 4 in registering crime considering represeritation dated 16122024 agahst resprc.ndent "9-?-yl: hasdisobeyedtrisoutvtoregistertheFirstlnformationReport(FlR)incognlzaDle offenses i.e Cheating forg'ery For The Purpose Of Cheating abusing and harrassment of a women' ,E*tor6on ,.lmpersonation, Threatening ,Cheating Honourable Court To Obtain Decree And Others despite receivtng a op."..nt"tion onZl.O1.Ziiq,fassing !F tlT-"^! the name of inquiry i'e Petition .rlqri.v pio""". Seriat No. rtiotoitozqrc1s83, which amounts to a delay of . days,. approximately nearly g5 _and conducting inquiry process twice i.e HYDr19122024to2124 which is deriberate ,nJ intun-tionrt and which is punishabre under section 199 of BNS as pubtic ".*rniai.ou"iing direction under raw and knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice or pui"on-ihich is iregar and arbitrary. c-onsequen,y direct the Respondent r.Io.g anb a to consioer representation dated "nv 16,2,024 and register crime against ,espondeni no 5 conducting pfoper inquiry pending disposar of the main wriipetition, ili tt.lrt"i""t naturarjustice lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under section-151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support.of the petition,-ir*ligh'i"r.t may be preased to dir.ct the Respondent No 2 and 3 to take a.prriruniri""t-iJn against the respondent no 5 who is invorved in knowingry ano wt'o tral ai;;; his duty to register the First Infoirllor-luport (FrR) in cognizabre on"n.u", affie receiving a representation on 23.09.2O24, which amounti to a delay .i ,dpr.rir""t.ly nearly 85 days, which is deliberate and intentionar. witnout rori6wid'ir;;;;*"s of raw, in the inrerest naturat iustice . pending disposat of tfre aOovJwrit pliitlon Counset for the petitioner: SRI. PINNAMANENI PRAVEEN KUMAR f;AilE", for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRt I-AXMTKANTH REDDYAGp FoR Counsel for the Respondent NO.5: ___ The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.882 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) Thiswritpetitionisfiledbythepetitionerseekingtodeclarethe action of respondents No.2 to 4 in not registering crime against respondent No.5 - the Station House Officer, Kachiguda Police Station' pursuant to her complaint/representation dated 1'6'12'2024' as being itlegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Mr. P. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the pehitioner' and Mr. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the complaint d,ated.16.12.202-4 lodged by dre petitioner discloses cognizable offence' as such, respondent No.5 ought to have registered crime against respondent No.5. Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home, basing on the 4. written instructions d.ated, 26.72.2024, subrnitted that pursuant to the complaint dated,76.72-2024 lodged by the petitioner, an entry was made in the General Diary and enquiry *ut "u*u{During the course of 2 enquiry, the petitioner neither cooperated with the enquiry nor produced arry relevant documentary evidence. As such, respondent No.5 deputed staff to the house of the petitioner at the given acldress on 23.09.2024. The deputed staff reported that the petitioner was not availabre at her house. Moreover, the neighbours stated that the petitioner has already vacated the house. Later, the petitioner sent her son to respondent No.5 on 7912.2o24 along with fresh complaint with the same averments. It is submitted that pursuant to the said complaint, an entry was made in the General Diary. But the petitioner did not furnish any relevant documents in support of her complaint. Respondent No.5 issued notice dated 23.12.2024 to the petitioner calling upon her to furnish relevant documentary evidence. The petitioner neither furnished any ,locuments/ evidence nor approached respondent No.5 for the purpose of enquiry. on the enouiry conducted bv respondent No.5, it was revealed that there is a civil dispute pencling between the petitioner and respondent No.5, as such the complaint lodged by the petitioner was closed as ,lack of evidence' and notice dated 26.72.2024 was issuecl to the petitioner intimating the closure of her complaint. J

5. A copy of the written instructions along wittr the notice dated 26.72.2[24issued to the petitioner intimating the closure of her complaint is served on the learned counsel for the petitioner' In view of the above' no further orders are required to be Passed' 6. The writ petition is disposed of' As the complaint of the petitioner was closed as 'lack of evidence' for want of relevant documentary evidence' the petitioner is given liberty to submit fresh complaint to respondent No.5 along with relevant documents' On receipt of the same' respondent No.5 shall cond'uct enquiry/ investigation in accordance wittr the law laid down in by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U'P1' There shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications' if any' pending in this writ Petition stand closed' 'AIR 20i2 sc 1515 SDI. A.PRATHIMA ASS T TREGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY,, S OF FICER to'', . tn" Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat' ,?#ffitf*,J:,5#'TPorice'Hvderabadcommanda:L?:il:',',f."J'5"' ' i"ir"*n" Police' Road No' 12' Bhavani Nagar ,Hf Bi"ilrt3::"'lissionerorPorice''"'"51T'.?"'1,T,3:f 3['*t"iffi! " ;ri M-;;rambagh n( Beside Bfl^1Y; uar' I ;*lgu#[t*srtngnm;+*:txr,r**rlil*-' fS *s

7. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 ORDER WP.No.882 of 2025 a r.r ,t '/:, ) i I :i i[?5 + 7 (', DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS d