SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 58205

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
Kouda Narsing Rao – Appellant
Versus
The state of Telangana – Respondent
WP 9380/2025



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 9380 of 2025

O R D E R

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondents-authorities, in particular, the 3rd respondent-authority is calling the petitioner to police station without there being any FIR registered, which action of the respondents, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to the respondents-authorities to issue statutory notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of BNSS before taking further action against the petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents would submit that one M.Rakesh had submitted a representation/complaint, dt.21.03.2025, against the petitioner herein; that on receiving the aforesaid complaint, the authorities have made a GD entry and sought for permission from the Assistant Commissioner of police for conducting enquiry into the matter; and that on obtaining permission from the said authority on 24.03.2025, a notice has been issued to the petitioner on 24.03.2025 calling upon him to come to the 3rd respondent’s office for causing preliminary enquiry into the contents of the complaint.

4. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioner did not choose to receive the aforesaid notice issued nor appeared before the authority for causing preliminary enquiry into the complaint lodged by one M.Rakesh, and had instead approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition on

25.03.2025.

5. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

6. Since, the respondents-authorities claim to have received a complaint on 21.03.2025 from one M.Rakesh against the petitioner, and for the purpose of conducting investigation/enquiry into the aforesaid complaint received, the authorities having called the petitioner to the 3rd respondent’s office, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to conduct enquiry into the aforesaid complaint lodged against the petitioner and take further action, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law.

7. Subject to the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J

28th March, 2025.

gra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top