IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.23016 of 2014 BETWEEN P. Vani.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home), Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner is that she has filed a complaint on 23.07.2014 and that no action is taken on the said complaint by the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, third respondent herein.
2. Learned Government Pleader for Home has received instructions from the Sub-Inspector of Police of the third respondent police station, which states as follows:
“It is true that the petitioner herein sent his complaint dated:23.7.2014 through post which was received by the SHO Panjagutta P.S. on 30.7.2014 and the same has been entered in the General Diary. The sum and substance of the complaint is that, the complainant/petitioner herein purchased house bearing D.No.55/2, 2nd Block, Rajakaveedhi, Chebrolu, Guntur District vide document No.309/89 in the year 1989. While traveling from Chebrolu to Ponnur, the petitioner lost her document in the year 1991. Thereafter she lodged a compliant and the SHO Ponnur, Guntur issued Memo of “non-traceable of the document”. The petitioner received phone call from her neighbour that the, State Bank of Hyderabad, Panjagutta has published notice in the newspaper that the said property will be auctions. Further the said Bank filed suit against the petitioner herein as guarantor and against one J.B. Subrahmanayam for recover of loan amount. The petitioner further mentioned that, the said J.B. Subrahmanyam obtained load impersonating with the collusion of the Bank staff and cheated the complainant/petitioner, so she requested the police to take necessary action.
It is submitted that, as the said complaint has received through post on 30.7.2014, after conducting preliminary enquiry a case in Cr.No.936/2014 U/s. 419, 420, 379 IPC has been registered on 22.8.2014 against one J.B. Subrahmanym, Proprietor of Krishna Sai Knit wear on the file of the Panjagutta Police Station. Basing on the evidence adduced during the course of investigation, an appropriate report will be submitted before the concerned Hon’ble Court at the earliest.”
3. In view of the above instructions that the complaint of the petitioner is already registered as Cr.No.936 of 2014 under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code and investigation is taken up, no further directions are called for in the writ petition except directing the third respondent to complete the investigation and thereafter, file an appropriate final report before the concerned jurisdictional Court.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 13, 2014 DSK