HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD ***

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1509 OF 2025 Between:

Mr. G. Sai Krishnaa @ Krishnaiah Gaddam ... PETITIONER v.

Mr. Vishnu S. Warrior and others ... RESPONDENTS DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 25.04.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newpapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals. : Yes

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ______________________

B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1509 OF 2025 % Date: 25.04.2025 # G. Sai Krishnaa & Krishnaiah Gaddam.

... PETITIONER v.

$ Vishnu S. Warrior and others.

... RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. P. B. Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing for Ms. A.V.S. Laxmi ^ Counsel for the Respondents : ---

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE ? CASES REFERRED: (2006) 6 SCC 207 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1509 OF 2025

ORDER

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 pet