IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

DATE: 03.12.2025

Between :

Alakuntla Yellaiah

… Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad,

and three others. … Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not conducting affective and fair investigation and altering a Section of Law from 307 IPC to 324 IPC and deleting the Section 398, as being illegal, arbitrary and against the law. I also further seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent No. 3 herein in not considering my representation dt. 24.10.2018 and as well representation to the District Collector dt. 25.10.2018 seeking entrustment of further investigation to the independent investigation agency i.e., CBCID as being illegal, arbitrary and against the law and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of

the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders…”

2. I have heard Ms. S. Ashritha Rao, learned counsel, representing Mr. V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for all the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the investigation conducted in Crime No. 119 of 2016, particularly the alteration of the section of law from Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) to Section 324 IPC and the deletion of Section 398 IPC, which, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and unjustified. It is further submitted that despite a representation made by the petitioner seeking entrustment of further investigation to the C.B.C.I.D. or any other independent investigating agency, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities. Hence, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions for a fair and impartial investigation.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the investigation in Crime No. 119 of 2016 was duly completed, and a charge sheet was filed, which was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C. No. 2315 of 2018 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. The matter is now at the stage of trial. It is further submitted that as the proceedings are pending before the competent trial Court, the petitioner has the opportunity to raise all contentions at the appropriate stage, and therefore, the prayer for further investigation has become infructuous. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the alteration of the section of law by the investigating agency from the graver offence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and deletion of Section 398 IPC (attempt to commit robbery with deadly weapon), reflects a biased and unfair investigation. On that ground, the petitioner seeks transfer of investigation to an independent agency.

7. However, the material on record indicates that the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge sheet, cognizance has been taken, and the case is now at the stage of trial. The framing of charges and determination of the appropriate sections of law fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the trial Court under Sections 216 and 228 of the CrPC, which empower the Court to alter or add to any charge at any stage before judgment, if the evidence so warrants.

8. It is well settled that the investigating agency is entitled to determine, on the basis of the materials collected during investigation, the applicable provisions of law for prosecution. However, the final decision as to the correctnes