S. Nayeema v. The State Of Telangana Represented By Its Principal

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE MS JUTICE J.UMA DEVI WRIT APPEAL No.1016 of 2017 Date:28.7.2017 Between:

S.Nayeema, D/o Late Syed Ahmaduddin ..... Appellant And:

The State of Telangana, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and14 others.

.....Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Party-in-person Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Home (TS) The Court made the following:

CVNR, J & JUD, J WA.No.1016 of 2017 Dated:28.7.2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal arises out of order, dated 28.9.2016, in Writ Petition No.29684 of 2016.

We have heard the appellant, who appeared as party-inperson, and the learned Government Pleader for Home (Telangana State).

The appellant has filed the afore-mentioned Writ Petition with the grievance that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been taking any action against the accused in Crime No.123 of 2015 on the file of Dabeerpura Police Station, Hyderabad, which was registered on her report, dated 20.9.2015. Based on the record produced by the learned Government Pleader for Home (Telangana State), a learned single Judge in the order under appeal has observed that after investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dabeerpura Police Station, Hyderabad, filed a final report before the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, referring the allegations in the complaint as "false". In the light of the said final report, the learned single Judge has dismissed the said Writ Petition with the observation that the remedy available to the appellant is to file a Protest Petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate. At the hearing, the party-in-person has submitted that she has already filed a Protest Petition and the same is subject matter

CVNR, J & JUD, J WA.No.1016 of 2017 Dated:28.7.2017 of enquiry before the jurisdictional Magistrate. She has, however, failed to indicate any error in the order of the learned single Judge for our interference while exercising our Letters Patent jurisdiction.

Admittedly, the appellant has a remedy of filing a Protest Petition under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said remedy having already been availed by her, this Writ Appeal is wholly meritless and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, WAMP.Nos.217 and 1965 of 2017 filed by the appellant for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous.

_____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY __________________ JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI 28th July 2017 DR