Boini Balraj v. The State Of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17448 OF 2022 Between:

Boini Balra.j, S/o late Bheemaiah, aged Employee, Fl/o Chowdapur village, Kulkache about 26 years, Occ. Private rla Mandal, Vikarabad District ,..PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, office at Lakdikapool Hyderabad.

3. The lnspector General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

4. The Dy. lnspector General of Police, Hyderabad.

5. The Sub-lnspector of Police, Kulkacherla Police Station, Vikarabad District.

6. Erukali Ashok, s/o Laxmaiah, aged about 26 years, occ. Student' r/o Chowdapur village Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District.

7. Erukali Anjaiah, S/o Laxmaiah, aged about 30 years, occ. Student, r/o Chowdapur village Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein the respondent Nos, 2 to 4 herein in conducting enquiry and direct the sth respondent to add the Respondent No. 6 as accused in relation to FIR No.64 of 2021 dt. 1315t2021 on the file of Kulkacherla Police Station, Vikarabad, inspite of the written representation dl. 31-1-2022 followed by personal visits, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and u nco n stitutiona I and consequently direct the

respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to conduct enquire into the FIR No. 64 ol 2021 and lo direct the sth respondent to add the 6th respondent herein as Accused in the above said case.

IA NO: 1 0F 2022 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to consider and take immediate action pursuant to the representations d|.311112022, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARUNAKAR REODY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. 17448 OF 2022 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of Respondents 2 to 4 in conducting enquiry and directing the Sff respondent to add the 6ft respondent as accused in relation to FIR No. 64 of 2021 dated 13.05.2021 on the file of Kulkacherla Police Station, Vikarabad.

2.

-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Karunakar Reddy submits that in view of the rash and negligent driving of Sri Ravula Venkatesh and Sri Erukali Praveen, the father of the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and later, succumbed to the same. He submits that in that connection, a crime was registered as FIR No. 64 of 2O2l for the offence punishable under Section 304-ll IPC. It is stated that during the course of investigation, police apprehended the 7th respondent herein and remanded him to judicial custody showing him as Accused No.2, but the 5s respondent did not properly conduct the investlgation for the reasons best known to him and has not arrested the 6e respondent, who is the main culprit. It is also stated that the petitioner made the representation dated 12.O I .2022 before the official respondents and the matter was _ -- ---3*{J!l>+_]&!-*

,2 entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of police and the witnesses have disclosed about the presence of the 6rh respondent at the spot, but due to political motivation, the 6rh respondent, who is prime accused, was not added. He submits that this action of the respondents is arbitrary, hence, the petitioner approached this Court.

3.

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home Sri S. Ramamohana Rao submits that the 6th respondent herein is shown as L.W.13, who purchased the crime vehicle and the police conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet. He submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy available to him is to approach the competent Criminal Court and he cannot approach this Court invoking writ jurisdiction. 4.

This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot go into the merits of the case and decide who has committed the offence and ra,ho should be arrayed as accused. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action / inaction on the part of the respondent officials, his remedy is to approach the competent criminal Court bur not this Court. In view of the effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.

5.

The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent criminal Court for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.

6.

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

I SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGII}TRAR SECTIONI'OFFICER To, I ,TRUE COPY//

1. One CCto SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

2. lwo CCs to the GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

3. Two C.D. Copies.

4. One Spare Copy.

MRC SB (

HIGH COURT DATED:0710412022 a s :t \€\ o

ORDER

WP.No.17448 of 2022 V?

--'.\ iz, --, cDISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L U