V. Prabhakar v. The State Of Telangana

Date : 14.3.2019 Between:

V Prabhakar S/o Late V Raghunayakulu Aged about 58 years Occ Advocate R/o Plot No 9B MLAs Colony Road No 12 Banjara Hills Hyderabad 500 034 Petitioner And The State of Telangana Represented by its Secretary Department of Home Secretariat Hyderabad & others Respondents The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

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

2.

Petitioner claims to be owner of house bearing Municipal No. 8-2-293/82/L/9B, Plot No. 9B, MLA's colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad having purchased the same from Smt E Vijayalakshmi and her husband Sri E Jitender Reddy. The petitioner alleges that 8th respondent herein is owner of Plot No. 23C and that he has requested the petitioner to alienate small portion of north western corner of Eastern Part of Plot No.9B and that he has declined the said request. Petitioner further alleges that on 1.12.2018 at about 10.00 a.m, 8th respondent along with his henchmen has demolished North Western Part of external compound wall to a length of about 21 feet and attempted to occupy the same so as to set right the dimensions of his plot.

That petitioner resisted the same and lodged a complaint with 6th respondent-SHO, Banjara Hills police station and that police visited the spot and detained 8th respondent and others in police station. Petitioner further alleges that on 3.12.2018 and 4.12.2018 some strangers loitering in his compound and knocking his doors and he lodged another complaint on 4.12.2018. Alleging inaction in registering crime and taking up investigation the present writ petition is filed. 3.

Based on written instructions furnished by Inspector of Police, learned Government Pleader would submit that on receipt of complaint dated 1.12.2018, General Diary was made and on preliminary enquiry it was clearly revealed that the dispute between petitioner and 8th respondent is purely civil in nature. As regards the complaint of the petitioner dated 4.12.2018, it is stated that since the dispute between

petitioner and 8th respondent is purely civil in nature, no action was taken thereon. As such vide intimation letters dated 13.12.2018 petitioner was informed to seek redressal of his grievances before competent forum.

4.

Thus, it cannot be said that police are negligent in attending to complaints filed by petitioner warranting this Court to issue writ of mandamus. The writ petition is dismissed. It is open to petitioner to work out his remedies if he is not satisfied with the decision of police not to register crime reported by him. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.

__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 14.3.2019 TVK

Date : 14.3.2019