m/s satish mutually aided coop housing society ltd v. State of Telangana.
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: N.TUKARAMJI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-16. m/s satish mutually aided coop housing society ltd v. State of Telangana. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
13217 | IN T}IE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) \ TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJ! WRIT PETITION NO: 39129 OF 2018 Between: M/s Satish Mutually Aided Co-op Housing Society Limited, Rep by its Authorized vionda Reddy slo. l. lepresentqtive,_l. s. N Sriramuld Rdddy, 64 yea-rs, Rqt{. Eqployee, o|fice at Satish {9ed.. about 9gc: Nagar, Dundigai- Gand imaisamma Mand al, Medchal-Malkhjgiri Distrkt43 PETITIONER AND 1. State of Telangana. , represented by its Prl. Secretaryr, Home Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Hyder:abad 2. The Director Generalof Police, State of Telangana, ffi@ at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-500004 3. Deputy Commissioner Ihe of Police, Balanagar Zone, Petbasheerabad Caton Residential Township, Bolarum, Secunderabad, Telangana 50001 s 4.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Petbasheerabad Division, Office at Caton Residential Township, Bolarum, Secunderabad, Telangana 500015 5. Station House Officer. , Dundigal Police Station ffice at Gandi Maisamma, Hyderabad, Telangana 500043. 6. chintala Yadagiri, s/o. Mallaiah, aged about 58 Years, occupation Business, R/o. H. No. 6-229, Van inagar, Ch inthal, Jeed imetla, Hyderabad. .. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitut'ron of lndia praying 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 a)To direct the respondents 1 to 5 to forthwith, register an FIR as against the 6th respondent under the relevant Penal Laws in force based on the complaint made by the petitioner society dt.
27l}Ot2018 and 11t0112018, pursuant to the guidelines of the Supreme Court Lalitha Kumari vs State of Uttar Pradesh, Reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 b)To direct the respondents 1 to 5 to invoke the AP Police Stancling Orders, as adapted by State of Telangana, standing oder : ' 601, 733 and 742 and open a History Sheet /Rowdy Sheet against the 6th respondent ilnd to put him under surveillance, for his illegal chminal recod c)To declare the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in making efforts to induct the 6th respondent into actual physical possession of the writ petitioners society mernbers plots, situated in Sy Nos. 242, 247, 250, 251, 252 and 268 in Bowrampet Village, Dundiga! -Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as if it is an agricultural lend to be illegal, arbitrary and to be beyond the scope and functions of their dutie:s.
d)and, to PASS tA NO: I OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondernts 1 to 5 not to take any steps to induct or deliver the actual physical possession t,r the 6th respondent, into the writ petitioner's society members plots, situated in tiy Nos. 242, 247, 25O, 251, 252 and 268 in Bowrampet Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as the same witl be beyond the scope and duties and functions of the respondent police, pending disposal of ttre main WP in the interest of justice. counserrorthePetitione*Jl? r"^i^ff lf 'fi [iil$;fi=^f,HiSNrrNc Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. l to 5: SRI D. PRADEEP AGP FOR HOME The Gourt made the fotlowing: ORDER rl I i l. I i ! I ii Ii t N IN THE HIGH c. OI,RT FOR THE STATE OF TELITNGANA AT HYDTRABAD N. TUKARAUJI THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICT DATE 2L6. L2.
2O25 Between: M/s Satish Mutually Aided Co-Op Housing Society Limited ... Petltloaers AND The State of Telangana & 5 Others ... Respondents ORDER This Writ Petition is frted with the follgwing relief: o... to particularly one in ttre issue a Writ order or direction more nature of writ of Mandamus aTo direct the responderrts I to 5 to forthwith register an FIR 25 against the 6th respondent under the relevant Penal Laws in forcJbased on the complaint made by tlre petitioner society dated 27-06-2078 and 1{/O\! 2OL8 p"r"ri""t to the guidelines of the Supreme Court Lalitha Kumari vs State of uttar Pradesh Reported in 2ol4 2 S@ 1 bTo direct the respondents 1 to 5 to invoke the AP Police standing orders as adapted by State of Tetangana standing order Nos 6O-1 733 andTab and open a History Sheet /Rowdy Sheet again-s! the 6th respondent and to put him under surveillance for his illegal criminal record cTo declare the action of tl.
e respotrdents 4 and actual 5 in making efforts to induct the 6th respondent lto physical poslsession of the writ petitioners sociegr rnembers plots sitrratea in sy Nos 242 247 25O 25L 252 and. 268 ia Bowrampet Village OuniigatCandimaisamma Mandat MedchatMdkqigiri District as if it is an agricultural land to be illegal arbitrary and to be beyond the scope and functions of their duties and to pass....... " 2. Heard Ms. G. Haripriaya, learned counsel fepresenting for the Mr. Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel, appearing petitioner; Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for reslrondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. S. V. Ramana, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6. 3. Lr:arned counsel for t]re petitioner submits that, as the respondent police authorities failed to act upon the petitioner's representations dated 27. O6. 2OL8 and 11. O1. 2O18 seeking reBistration of a crime against respondent No.
6, as well as for issuance of directions to open and continue a rowdy/suspect sheet against him to place him under police surveillance, and further to restrain respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from allegedly making attempls to induct respondent No. 6 into physical possession of tJre disputed property, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to the respondent police authori'Eies. 4. Le:arned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that ther allegations that the petitioner's representations were not conside:red are wholly baseless. It is submitted that the representations were duly examined, and a reasoned communication rejecting the request to open a rowdy sheet against respondent No. 6 was sent to tl:e petitioner through Registered Post. It is further contended that the allegation that ' .. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are making efforts to induct respondent / -'aa \\ (f No. 6 into possession is equally unfounded.
The respondent police autlrorities are c-onducting themselves stricfly in accordance with law ald within the bounds of their jurisdiction' Hence, it is prayed that thd writ petition, being devoid of merit, be disinissed' 5. karned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 submits that the allegations mad. e against the unoflicial respondents are without any factual or legal basis. It is pointed out that civil and criminal proceedings are already pending between the peti-tionef and respondent No. 6. Referring to the counter allidavit o respondent No. 5, it is reiteratdd that tJle petitionerls representations were duly considered and rejected by the competent police authorities. Therefore, if the petitioner was aggrieved by such rejection, he ought to have availed tt " , appropriate legal remedies available under law, rathel invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constihrtion.
It is furttrer contended that a second appeal arising out of tlle civil dispute between the parties is presently pending before t]le competent civil court, wherein an interim order restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the property is subsisting. [n such circumstances' the prayer for issualce of directions to the police is not only improper but would also amount to interference with pending judicial proceedings. Hence, tlre allegations that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are attempting to tsJ induct respondent No. 6 into possession are factually and legally ' i untenable. Accordingly, dismissal of tJ:e writ petition is ii sought. I I 6. I have perused ttre material placed on record. I i I 7. The petitioner's grievance regarding non-registration of a crime and non-opening of a rowdy/ suspect sheet against responrlent No. 6 has. been addressed by respondent No. 5 in his counter alfidavit wherein it is specifically stated that the petitior.
er's representations were duly considered and rejected, and su,:h rejection was communicated to the petitioner through Registe:red Post. Ttrerefore, it is evident that the respondent police authorities have exercised their jurisdictional discretion and arrived at a reasoned conclusion not to register a case or open a rowdy/:tuspect against respondent No. 6. Consequently, the "5se1 contention that the police authorities failed to consider the petitioner's representations is unfounded. 8. It is now well settled that when a complaint is made regarding non-registration of an FIR, the aggrieved person has a specifrc statutory remedy under the Code of Criminal Frocedure, 1973 fCr. P. C. J, now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 fBNSS,). The Honbte Supreme Court in Sakiri V. a. su u. State of U. p. & Others (AIR 2OO8 SC 9O7l and M. u. -\-ubramaniam S.
Janaki & Otlers (AIR 2O2O SC a87);;s categorically held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for registration of an FIR . is not maintainable without frrst exhausting these ellicacious alternative remedies und. er the cr. P. c. /BNSS. In ttre circumstances, liberty is reserrred to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as may be available in law before t]le competent Magistrate or appropriate forum, if any cause of aetion still suryives. g. Further, as regard. s the request to open a rowdylsuspect sheet against respondent No. 6, it is settled that the maintenance of such sheets is a preventive measure governed by the Andhra The Pradesh Police Manual and corresponding Standing Orders' . , d. ecision to open or continue a rowdy/suspect sheet lies within tlre exclusive domain and ad.
ministrative discretion of the competent police authorities, based on tangible material indicating habitual or potential involvement in criminal activity' 10. Judicial interference in such preventive or administrative measufes ted. only in exceptional cases where mala fid. es, arbitrariness, or violation of fundamental rights is demonstrably established (Kamma Bapuii u. station House oJfier, B. Nagar Potie Station" Lggg I (3) ALD 226 (AP))' No such \ \ I circumstances are made out in the present case. In light of the above, rhe petitioner's contention regarding failure of the police to register a case or open a rowdy sheet against respondent No. 6 is untenable. 11. with regard to'the dlegation that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are mal<ing efforts to induct respondent No.
6 into possession of the disputed property, it is seen that civil litigation between the parties is already pendirrg, and a second appeal is stated to be subsisting, wherein an interirn order restraining the petitioner from interference is in force. In view of t]' e pendency of such proceedings and. the interim rlirections in operation, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent police authorities not to interfere wi. th the possession of the subject ilroperty in any manner. except in strict accordance with law and upon due process being followed. L2- Ac,:ordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Mi:scellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR. /TTRUE COPY// OFFICER To, 1 The Prl. glrtg of. Telangana. , 9ggelg. ry, Home Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad 2- The Direrctor Gereral of police, state of relangana. office at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-500004 3. The. Dep.
gt. y_Commissionerof Potice, Balanagar Zone, Petbasheerabad Caton Residential rownship,- Bolarum, secunderabEd, Telangana s0oo 1 s 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Petbasheerabad Division, Offrce at caton Residentia! Townsh ip, Bolarum, secunderabad, telingi nh soo-o r s I 5. station House fficer. , station office at QglgigglPolice Gandi Maisamma, Hyderabad, Telangani SOOO+-S. 6. One CC to Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, Advocate [OpUC] 7. Two cGs to GP for Home, High court for the state of rerangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI 8. One GC to Sri M. V. Ramana, Advocate[OpUCt 9. Two CD Copies T J /MJR #4. -, I 1l HIGH COURT I N 1 DATED:1611212025 ) ORDER WP. No. 39129 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ulrr"
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.