Sheri Karunakar Reddy, v. The State Of Telangana,

Date : 14.3. 2019 Between:

Sheri Karunakar Reddy S/o Ananthareddy Aged 35 years Occ Airtel Net work R/o Nidjintha Village Maddur Mandal Mahabubnagar District Telangana State Petitioner And The State of Telangana Rep by its Prl Secretary Home Deportment Secretariat Hyderabad & others Respondents The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home.

2.

On 31.1.2019 petitioner lodged a complaint in Maddur police station, Mahabubnagar district, alleging that persons named therein came to his house with deadly weapons i.e., axes, knifes and sticks and attacked him and his family members and few others were also injured. Petitioner also alleged that person by name L Laxminarayan Reddy was responsible for provoking the above accused to attack petitioner and his family members, he therefore sought to take action against them. Based on said complaint Crime No. 13 of 2019 was registered. 3.

Petitioner filed remand case diary dated 1.2.2019 wherein the Circle Inspector of Police, Kosgi circle, explained in detail the contents of crime and action taken thereon. It discloses that accused 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10 and 15 were apprehended on 31.1.2019 and as they admitted their guilt, they were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodangal and sought remanding them to judicial custody for further period.

4.

The documents placed on record by petitioner itself would disclose that police are prompt in responding to the complaint, complaint was registered and investigation was taken up. According to remand case diary, few of accused were absconding. Thus, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay or police are negligent in investigation, as sought to be contended by petitioner.

5.

As seen from the complaint filed by the petitioner, he was only alleging about attack made on him and his family members on 31.1.2019 and in the said complaint, there is no allegation of further

threat to his life, as is sought to be contended for the first time in the writ petition. Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as available in law with regard to alleged threat to his life from respondents 7 and 8 and for providing police protecting, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.

__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 14.3.2019 TVK

Date :14.3.2019