K.Jayalekha v. The State Of Telangana,

[ 34861 HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY K.Jayalekha, Wo. Ravi Kumar, Aged about 46 years, R/o. Plot No.555 Vineyard Liberty Apartment, Flat No.201 Defence Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad.

...PETITIONER AND 't.

The State Of Telangana, Rep by its Principle Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Director General of Police , State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2.

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

3.

The Deputy Commissioner of police, Malkajgiri Division, Secunderabad. The Station House Officer, Neredmet Police Station, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad.

4.

5.

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not registering the complaint and not taking action against the persons mentioned in the complaint and not providing the police protection to the petitioner and her family members is illegal, arbitrary and causing to danger to the lives of the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioners complaint by providing the police protection to the petitioner and her family members.

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 n:spondents to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner and her family members pending disposal of the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT JYOTHI ESWAR GOGINENI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

WRIT PEf,ITIOI{ No.29157 of 2O15 Heard Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel for tJle petitioner has submitted that the cause in the present Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. 3.

In view of the above submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR //TRUE COPY// R To, 'l . One CC to SMT JYOTHI ESWAR GOGINENI, Advocate [OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies BSR PVL <r+

HIGH COURT ATED:'1710912025 1 i:'i S L4 \\ ( lJ 2 I JAl.l 2026 Z.

t -t =.t ' ,a'- WP.No.29167 ot 2015 DISMISS{NG THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRIJCTUOUS ;1 THOU'T COSTS q&,