Devaraju Pidathala v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P.No. 33386 of 2017 O R D E R:- The petitioners, complaining the inaction in registering F.I.R.

pursuant to the complaints dated 25.08.2017, 30.08.2017 and 12.09.2017, have filed the instant writ petition.

From the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is evident that the complaints referred in the writ prayer were enquired into and the 3rd respondent was of the view that the complaint made is substantially civil in nature, and therefore, F.I.R. was not registered. The same was also intimated to the petitioners as the stand of the respondents. The writ petition was heard on 09.10.2011, 12.10.2017 and also 01.11.2017. The petitioners did not inform the subsequent developments namely filing another complaint, which resulted in registering F.I.R. No. 128 of 2017. Now, when the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel seeks liberty to withdraw the writ petition. Though not a case of abuse of process, but the petitioners ought to have stated all the details which have happened subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. On account of the challenge to the statement made by the respondents, the officer is to be summoned, record is to be perused, etc. Though the request

SVB,J WP_33386_2017 for withdrawal is permitted, however the same is at the cost of Rs.1,000/ - (Rupees One Thousand Only) payable to the Member Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of one week and file receipt in the Registry. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

_________________ S.V. BHATT, J 02.11.2017 bcj