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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 4226

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. Tukaramji, J
Puppala Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and 2 Others – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.19713 OF 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Malathi Naidu
For the Respondents: D. Pradeep

A writ petition seeking a direction for police action becomes infructuous once the investigation is completed and a charge sheet is filed in the competent court.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the respondent authorities failed to take appropriate action in Crime No. 585 of 2019. The court found that the investigation had been completed and a charge sheet had been filed, leading to the initiation of C.C. No. 320 of 2020, which is currently pending trial. The central issue was whether the inaction of the respondent police warranted judicial intervention. The court reasoned that since the charge sheet had been filed, the grievance of the petitioner had been effectively addressed, rendering the petition devoid of merit for further adjudication. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Table of Content
1. the status of the criminal investigation and the filing of a charge sheet in the trial court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. dismissal of a writ petition as infructuous when the underlying grievance is resolved by administrative action. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents especially the action of the respondent No.3 in not taking any action in Crime No. 585 of 2019 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 3 to enquire into the matter and to take appropriate action against the persons on whom the crime was registered in Crime No. 585 of 2019 and to pass.......”

2. Heard Mr.N.Malathi Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as Respondent No.3 has not taken any action in Crime No.585 of 2019, the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that Crime No.585 of 2019 on the file of Uppal Police Station was duly investigated and, upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Consequently, C.C. No.320 of 2020 was taken on file by the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, and the matter is presently pending trial. It is therefore contended that the contention of the petitioner no longer subsists, and dismissal of the petition is sought.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. Having regard to the prayer of the petitioner and the developments that have transpired during the pendency of this petition, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioner has been effectively addressed by the respondent police by filing the charge sheet. Accordingly, nothing survives for adjudication in this matter.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top