##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No. 3412 OF 2020

DATE: 26.03.2026

Between:

Mohammed Saleem …Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana and Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly in the nature of the Writ of the Mandamus declaring the abuse of Police by the 7th Respondent at the instance of Respondent No. 6 and without direction of Respondent No. 1 to 5 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of the natural justice and against their statutory duties and against the norms of the public policy and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No. 1 to 5 to take departmental action against the

Respondent No. 7 and pass....”

2. Heard Mr.M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.7, at the instance of respondent No.6, acted

2

beyond the scope of his official duties and authority. On that basis, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents No.1 to 5 to initiate appropriate departmental action against respondent No.7. Further, the petitioner seeks a direction restraining respondent No.5 from implicating the petitioner in any false or

motivated cases at the instance of respondents No.6 and 7.

4. It is further contended that a legal notice dated 06.02.2020 was issued to respondent No.7, and on the very same day, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, indicating mala fides. Additionally, it is alleged that respondent No.7, in collusion with unofficial respondents, submitted a final report in a manner warranting inquiry and departmental

action. On these grounds, appropriate orders are sought.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that on 06.02.2020, based on a complaint lodged by one Hussain Ali, the husband of respondent No.6, a case in Crime No.62 of 2020 was registered, in which the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.2. It is further submitted that a notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was issued to the petitioner on

14.02.2020.

3

6. It is contended that the allegations of false implication or fabrication of criminal cases are baseless and devoid of merit. On the contrary, it is alleged that the petitioner contacted respondent No.7 over the phone and issued threats, including that he would initiate legal proceedings and file writ petitions against him, and also sent messages through WhatsApp to that effect. Therefore, it is submitted that the allegations raised by the petitioner are unfounded and the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

7. I have perused the material available on record.

8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, the following issues arise for consideration (a) Whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can direct initiation of departmental action against respondent No.7 on the basis of allegations of improper investigation? (b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction restraining the police authorities from registering criminal cases at the instance of private

respondents?

4

9. Analysis and findings: Issue No.1: Alleged improper investigation and departmental action It is not in dispute that Crime No.49 of 2019 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and that, upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, endorsing the case as “action dropped.” Significantly, neither the petitioner nor the de facto complainant has challenged the said final report before

the Magistrate by invoking the remedies available under law.

10. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a complete statutor