ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief:

“... to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Respondent No.3 herein, making advise to the Petitioner No.2 herein, to approach the Hon’ble Court instead of registering the crime against the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein on 18-04-2024 is violation of orders of the Hon’ble Apex court vide in criminal appeal No. OF 2024 SLP (Crl) No 5758/2024 dated 26-04- 2024 and Criminal appeal Nos.1565-1567/2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos.8829-8831/2026 dated 05-04-2024 and AIR 2001 SC 2113, 2001 (2) ALD (CRI) 246 2001 CRL J 2587, 2001 (1) SCALE 63A, (2001) 9 SCC 581, AIR 2001 SUPERME COURT 2113, DATED 04.01.2001 is illegal, arbitrary, violation Principles of Natural Justice and against the Article 14, 19, 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to registered a Criminal Case against the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein upon the compliant made by the Petitioner No.2 herein on 180-4-2024, thereafter the matter will be duly investigated into and appropriate action be taken accordingly as held by the Hon’ble Apex court vide in AIR 2001 SC 2113, 2001 (2) ALD (CRI) 246 2001 CRL J 2587, 2001 (1)

SCALE 63A, (2001) 9 SCC 581, AIR 2001 SUPERME COURT 2113, DATED 04.01.2001 Situated at Phanigiri village Nagaram Mandal Suryapet district for the state of

Telangana forthwith and Pass ...”

2. Heard Mr. J. Raghuram, learned counsel, representing Mr. K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Mr. B. Sri Karan, learned counsel, representing Mr. K.V. Sudhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and perused the material on record.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, having received written instructions, submitted that on receipt of complaint from petitioner No.2, an entry in General Diary (G.D.) was made. In the enquiry, it was revealed that there is civil dispute pending between the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in O.S. No.97 of 2019 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, as such, the complaint of petitioner No.2 was closed as civil in nature on 18.04.2024 and he was suggested to approach the concerned Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Notice was sent to the petitioners on 27.04.2024 and 29.04.2024 intimating them about the closure of their complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that merely because civil suit is pending, the same cannot be a ground to close the investigation/enquiry. Police are bound to examine the witnesses and conduct investigation as the contents of the complaint disclose cognizable offences. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 did not conduct investigation and did not consider encumbrance records of the Sub-Registrar, Suryapet (Page No.47), which shows that the registered gift deeds executed by father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been cancelled. Further, the Memo No.B/1366/2014, dated 29.02.2016 issued by Tahsildar, Tirumalagiri Mandal, whereby, the pattadar pass books issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been cancelled, also is not considered by the respondent No.3.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that petitioners have an effective alternate remedy of approaching jurisdictional Court, if aggrieved by the closure report.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the learned counsel, this writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies available under law, if aggrieved by the closure of their complaint. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

_______________________

B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

August 08, 2024

Note: Furnish CC by 09.08.2024

(BO) MS