Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 446
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD
B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.
Mr. G. Sai Krishnaa @ Krishnaiah Gaddam- Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Vishnu S. Warrior and others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.1509 of 2025
Decided On : 25-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. B. Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing for Ms. A.V.S. Laxmi
Government officials can be held personally liable for negligence in civil duties, and a plaint cannot be dismissed based on the availability of an alternative remedy without proper legal grounds.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 324, 506 read with Section 34 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Suit for damages against police officials for inaction - Trial Court rejected the plaint citing absence of cause of action, error in law, and failure to recognize liability of officials. (Paras 5, 7, 11)
(B) Vicarious liability of public servants - Court emphasized that Government officials are not exempt from personal liability for actions during official duties if not acted in good faith. Court stated, "the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternate remedy." (Paras 5, 11)
(C) Cause of action - It was held that the trial Court's determination of no cause of action contradicted the pleadings in the plaint, necessitating registration of the suit. The court observed, "Law cannot be static; it changes from time to time depending upon the changes in the society and modern thinking." (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed damages of Rs.1 crore due to inaction by police officials regarding repeated thefts in his mango garden, leading to physical and mental suffering. He lodged multiple complaints, but the police failed to take appropriate actions against the accused.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court's order to reject the plaint was unsustainable, lacking legal grounds for barring the claim and mischaracterizing the cause of action.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the interpretation of cause of action and the liability of police officials in negligence cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial Court erroneously rejected the plaint without valid legal basis, affirming that the case concerning negligence can proceed and be registered before the civil court.
Result: Civil revision petition allowed; the trial Court's order set aside and suit directed to be registered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint of negligence by police over inaction on theft. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court's dismissal of plaint for lack of cause of action is unsustainable. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. high court's directive to allow the suit proceedings. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.
The petitioner - plaintiff filed a suit in S.R. No.9 of 2025 on 06.01.2025 before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Sathupally, seeking to direct the respondents - defendants to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) with an interest of 24% per annum to the petitioner from the date of suit till the date of realization.
2. Inter alia, in the suit, it was pleaded by the petitioner that he has succeeded to the suit schedule property - Mango Garden (for short ‘property’) from his parents. The property was protected by the standard iron gates. There were two (2) iron gates fixed by the petitioner. The accused persons by name Mr. Gaddam Narsimha S/o. Gaddam Veladri @ Yadadri and others entered in to the property of the petitioner by removing iron gates and stolen them on the instigation of some unknown persons.
2.1 The petitioner has made a complaint to the SHO, Sathupally Rural Police Station, stating that the accused persons have attacked him on 14.08.2019, and he also categorically expressed the law position as per the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) about the liability of accused persons. However, the Police did not take any action. Taking undue advantage of the same, the accused persons again committed offences by removing gates, as such, the petitioner has lodged another complaint on 10.03.2022, by referring to earlier complaints before SHO, Sathupally Rural Police Station, and also forwarded the same to the concerned Commissioner of Police and Circle Inspector. The Sathupally Rural Police Station has simply registered a case in Crime No.95 of 2022 against four (4) accused persons only. Hence, the petitioner has addressed letters to respondent No.2 - defendant No.2 - the Station House Officer (SHO), Sathupally Police Station, on 06.07.2022 for taking action against the accused and for impleading Mr. Inampudi George and his four (4) sons in the above crime, but Police neither took any action against the accused nor impleaded the above persons.
2.2 On 07.10.2023, the petitioner has given complaint to SHO, Sathupally Rural Police Station, explaining about the additional complaint in Crime No.95 of 2022 regarding offence committed by other accused persons and for recovering the stolen property of the petitioner. On 19.10.2023, petitioner issued notice to the Commissioner of Police, Sathupally, for making enquiry about Crime No.95 of 2022 against accused persons and for summoning the official sub-ordinates. Several reminders were also given by the petitioner to the Police. On 03.04.2024, petitioner has addressed a letter to the concerned Commissioner of Police for taking action against the Police sub-ordinates, but no action was taken.
2.3 The petitioner has also sent letters and reminders to respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 to look into the seriousness of the theft case. But no action was initiated. In Form No.52 intentionally the description of petitioner - plaintiff was shown as Mr. Gaddam Sai Krishna W/o. Yadadri, instead of son of Mr. Yadadri. It was deliberate act on the part of the then Circle Inspector (CI) of Police, Mr. Mohan Babu, to humiliate the petitioner. Respondents deserve punishment as they have not taken any action against the then CI of Police, Mr. Mohan Babu. The CI of Police has intentionally damaged the case of the petitioner for some personal benefits and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against A1 and A6, by removing the names of A2 to A5. The deletion of names of accused is intentional. Police have wrongly referred the case as Crime No.382 of 2021 instead of Crime No.95 of 2022 and misguided the Court, and Form -
