High Court · 2025

14 G Satyanarayana. S/o. Basappa, Aged 55 years, Occ Aqriculture. R/o Mamidipaly Nandigama uanadr. Cybeiabad,-Ra;s, . ;;; Di;i;,"t'"'- '"" 15. C.h. Srinivasulu. S/o. Venkataiah, Aged 3g years, Ocr, )rivate Employee, R/o. Maseed Mam idipa ilv, Nandigama M"andar, cyb"abad r, ngi n-"iliy b-isirici] ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 7 The State of Telanoana Rep. By lts principal Secre r ry, Home Department. Secretariat. Hyderabad The Commissioner of police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reclclr Drstrrct. The Station House Officer, pS Nandigama, Cyberabarl Ranga Reddy District. N. Naveen Reddy, S/o. N. Venkatram Reddv I ged 35 Years, Occ Agncutture. R/o Modallaguda, Mamidioallv (po r Cyberabad. Ranga Reddy o'istitii - -'*"' \'| v' Nandigama Mandal, Kolan Sudhakar Reddv. S/o Shiva Reddy Aged 35 ye€ s, Occ Business, R/o Brahmanpatty. Bibinag'ar. Bhongir Tet;;6;;"a. M. Raghavender Goud, S/o Shiva Ramulu Agncutture, R/o. Modallaguda, Mamidioailv ' - -'-*"' Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy Djstfl;t. K. Sridhar Goud, S/o Narayana, Aqed 2g Yo9gll?guge Mamidipaily riol -ilan-aigam;' He0dy utstflct. \ged 35 Years, Occ Nandigama Mandal, Occ Business, R/o. Cyberabad, Ranga - "' ' " Years, Ma nd,r Goud, (Po) 8 C. Yadagiri Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aqed 30 yea,: Modalllguda MainiOipaly tpol, Nj;Oig-;" tu;il,; Reddy District 9. Katna Srisailam, lVlanchanpahad, Reddy District . . S/o Yadaiah, Aged 35 years. ( cc Aqriculture, R/o. tvlamidrpaily (po). Nandigama rvrin.i cvu'"lJ6r'i,"n."g, Occ Business, R/o. Cyberabad, Ranga - 10 C, Narender Reddy. S/o Ram Reddy, Aoed 28 yea s N;,ridt,a";'"n/l,n.r, r lVrodaI|aguda rr/am ioipaIIy ipoi Reddy District - Occ Business, R/o. Cyberabad, Ranga

11. firl. ,Naresh goud. S/o pentarah, Modalla.guda Mamidipaily (po), Reddy District Aged 26 Na nd igama Years. Mandz I Ccc Business, R/o Cyberabad, Ranga

12. C Madhusudhan Reddy. [:"; # Bl3JlX?', ,p/o..Nar3V.ana Reddy Aged l , /ssrs, Occ Business ;i ";#,;: ii;;:; 13.Ashraf Khan, S/o Jahangir Khan. Aged 38 years Occ Busrness, R/o d a M a m d i p a I rv I C6 i t']a ii is # ; i4", ; ; ; ; i Mamidipaily. Nandigama w"anoai. CyoeiZ"o"ad, Rril; R: tdy District "6

14.Srinivas Reddv Lachaoari, S/o Ramchandra Reddy. . ged 36 years, Occ j Xrr"aig:rrr"t\a:";ji Agriculture. R/b. Sreeni"vasuraguoe;.-M;r;iaip"riv"iF, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy Disirl;t-- "'e rriviPs'r, \ '15. T Raghupathi Aqriculture, R/o District. Reddy, Mamidip S/o .Ramchandra Reddy, Lr ed 42 years, Occ ally. Nandigama Mandal,'Cybi abad, Rarqr-h";;; "["lJJ.,Y?'('JlT.[?X1i';';Sruffi;i,.,H:g"h5%,.#.lyears,occRrc " [*SIj[Xfi:' s/o Balram' Ased 42 Years, occ Business, R/o uppar, 18. Katna Ramchandraiah S/o, pochaiah, Aged 46 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o H*XglfH., Mamidiparrv iF;l ti;ilt;;; rrr'"'naar, cyberabad. Ranga 1 9. Anjan Kumar Goud. S/o yadaiah Goud, Aged 29 yeals, Occ Agriculture, R/o. 20. IVlamillapallv Raiu. S/o It/amidipaily, Nandilama mr-"ai, C;ffi;Hi R';ng=, n"ooy o,.tri", Mamidipaily, Nandigama nltr",jri, ivd"iit o,"nrl,=g, Reddy District Iti,tamidipaily, Nandigama rvrrnori, dy6"rl"iJo ",i";;, .Ramaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ Business. R/o 2l.Pilloniguda Ramesh S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ Business. R/o 22. Chindam Mahesh. S/o Nspsinlglu. .Aged 28 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Mamidipallv tp"i' Nri,o,-s;;a' [,r? noar. cyberabad. Ra nsa 23. Kummari Krishnaiah, S/o Lingaiah. Aged 4g years. Occ Agriculture, R/o. J* u]i. 24. C. Purushotham Redrlv,.Slo Narsrmha Reddy, Aged 3g years, Occ Business. Mafi idipairv ip;,, ft ;il;#,*[,ianoa r, cyberabad Ransa tt/a m id ini trY i e"i. -p ;;0,;;;, rvr,,oii, H:,"#'fi ::!? bL",ft , Hed8ia#ix?,, Reddy Districr "cv[ [!1#B13Jlfl?:da,

25. M. Ramchandraiah Gorrd, S/o^Narsaiah, Aged 55 years. Occ Agriculture, R/o. cybeiabad, Ransa -N;;i,sxil""n,lrl.,o,r, rilamioipatrv teoi H".tlf :flfu "W#!f, il,"#ld,:1,?lBiil,li,f gfiXf"u[,",T;;,ot",A?:B:[:,?":!",

27. K. Ganesh Goud. S/o Narsimulu Aged 3g years. Occ Agriculture, R/o. hlr?arr cyberabad, Ransa [l".tif:flx. tvramidiparrv ic"i -Nrr?ts'r;", ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of wRrr oF MANDAMUS Decraring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not taking any action against the Respondent Nos. 4 to 27 in respect of various crimes registered against them by Respondent No. 3, porice Kothur (M) as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unreasonabre and viorative of principres of naturar justice and consequentialy direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate steps to investigate into the crimes by taking action aga r;t Respondent Nos. 4 to 27. l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 53877 0F 20171 Petrtion under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in th€ in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Higlr circumstances stated lourt may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 & 3 to take immediate stepr; -o investigate into the crimes by taking action against the Respondent Nos.4 tc 27 forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.ANAND KUMAR 0'ror rr :SENT) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI M.SRINIVAS, I GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.43458 ot 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief "...fo issue a writ, order or direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not taking any action against the Respondenf Nos- 4 to 27 in respect of various crimes registered against them by Respondent No. 3, Police Kothur (M) as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate sfeps to investigate into the crimes by taking action against Respondent Nos. 4 to 27 and pass. . . . "

2. None for the petitioners

3. Heard Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 3

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that out of several crimes registered against the accused persons, sixteen ('16) cases have already been closed, either upon discharge of the accused or through filing of final reports classifying the matters as civil in nature, false, or lacking in evidence. lt is further submitted that two (2) cases were amicably settled before the Lok Adalat. At present, Crime No.256 of 2017 and Crime No.281 of 2017 are pending investigation against the accused concerned. Hence, it is contended that the allegation made by the petitioners regarding police inaction is wholly untenable. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader 2 submits that the contention of the petitioners doe s not survive for consideration. 5 I have perused the materials available on reco-r '

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that the r rspondent police authorities, particularly respondent Nos' 2 and 3' I i ve failed to take appropriate action against the unofficial respon(l( nts (arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 to 27) in respect of several crimin Ll cases allegedly registered against them.

7. However, the factual developments placed b: the learned Assistant Government Pleader demonr; ore this Court bY 'ate that fourteen (14) of those cases have already been concluded' reports or discharge orders, and two cases c: either by closure rtinue to remain pending. Specifically' the record reveals that the per iing matters have since been taken cognizance of as S C' No'356 of '022 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial ol Cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventirr of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Juc ;e, Ranga ReddY District, and C.C. No.339 ot 2024 on the file of the ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, both of which are current r pending trial. ln light of the above factual position, it ir evident that the 8. respondents/police authorities have taken appr < criate and timely 3 action on the complaints lodged by the petitioners' and the matters are progressing through due legal process' lt is well settled that once the investigating agency has acted upon a complaint and the matter is under judicial consideration or has culminated in closure or trial' a writ petition seeking further directions becomes infructuous' Reference may be made to Union of tndia v Sushil Kumar Modi' (1998) 8 SCC 661, and Sakiri Vasu v slafe of uftar Pradesh' (2008) 2 SCC 409' wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when alternative remedies through investigation or trial are in progress, judicial intervention under Article 226 should be minimal Consequently' the grievance raised by the petitioners stands effectively redressed' and no further directions are warranted from this Court' I Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions' pending if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// One CC to SRI M.ANAND KUMAR, Advocate Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Coutl Hyderabad [OUT] P Two CD CoPies i \ To, 1 2 .1 BSR GJP Nr SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ISTANT RE GIS SECTION OFFICER State of Telangana at '7 HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 i ( o o.' Y * :5!d ( 0 I :IE 2l],i t) :* I ORDER WP.No.43458 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS .r{ .\^r\tr