Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 709 (TS)

Vemula Srinivas v. State of Telangana

2023-10-20

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

body2023
ORDER : This writ petition is filed 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 Nos. 3 to 6 in non-receiving my complaint and non-initiating to take necessary action against the respondents Nos.7 to 10 and non-initiating to conduct the detailed enquiry against them who are colluded with the respondents Nos.11 to 19 by taking bribes and non-initiating to take necessary action against the illegal construction of the Respondents Nos.11 to 19 to an extent of 480 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.766 and 600 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.766 totaling to an extent of 1080 Sq. Yards which is situated at Koheda Village and Mandal of Siddipet district without taking any valid permissions from the concerned authorities during the pendency of civil suit vide OS No.50 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge at Husnabad is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 to receive my complaint and take necessary action against the respondents Nos.7 to 10 and to conduct the detailed enquiry against them who are colluded with the respondents Nos.11 19 by taking bribes and not took necessary action against the illegal construction of the Respondents Nos.11 to 19 to an extent of 480 Sq Yards Sy.No.766 and 600 Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 766 totaling to an extent of 10 Sq. Yards which is situated at Koheda Village and Mandal of Siddipet District without taking any valid permissions from the concerned authorities during the pendency of civil suit vide OS No.50 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge at Husnabad…” 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the open plots to an extent of 480 square yards in Sy.No.766 and 600 square yards in Sy.No.766 totaling to an extent of 1080 square yards situated at Koheda Village and Mandal of Siddipet District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.972 of 2014 and 1791 of 2014. It is the case of the petitioner that while executing the registered sale deed his vendor has shown the wrong boundaries and cheated the petitioner which necessiated him to institute a suit for rectification of boundaries vide O.S.No.50 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad and the said Court also granted ad interim injunction in his favour in I.A.No.258 of 2019, dated 13.08.2019. It is the further case of the petitioner that even after granting injunction in favour of the petitioner, respondent Nos.11 to 19 have trespassed into the subject property and threatened him with dire consequences and also started construction in part of the land without having any valid permission and stating the said facts, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before respondent No.6 but respondent No.6 had refused to receive the said complaint stating that the contents of the complaint discloses civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 19. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 had colluded with respondent Nos.7 to 19, therefore, no action has been initiating against them. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 had submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioner discloses civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 19 and a civil suit is also pending, therefore, the respondents-police have not entertained any complaint in view of the pendency of the civil suit before the competent civil Court. 4. A reading of the complaint and the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition disclose that civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 19 and the petitioner has already instituted O.S.No.50 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad. In view of the pendency of the civil disputes, the respondents-police are right in not entertaining the complaint and if the petitioner is having any grievance for not entertaining the complaint, he is having an alternative remedy of filing a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate and if the said private complaint discloses cognizable offence, the concerned Magistrate can exercise the powers under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. in referring the complaint for registration. In view of the fact that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition filed is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.