Telangana High Court
Mr. Amit Pal Singh vs The State Of Telangana And 15 ... on 9 November, 2021
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 8019 OF 2021
O R D E R:
Grievance in the Writ Petition is that Respondent No. 5
- Station House Officer, I Town, Gandhi Chowk, Nizamabad has
not acted upon complaint of petitioner dated 25.02.2021 (wrongly
mentioned as 04.02.2021). Petitioner states that he is absolute
owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in Survey No.
337, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad Shivar having purchased the
same under registered sale deed dated 14.06.2016. Petitioner was
issued mutation orders vide proceedings dated 21.06.2016. He
applied before the authorities concerned for survey of land.
Panchnama was conducted on 24.06.2019. Petitioner states that
he received a call from IV Town Police, Nizamabad to appear before
police in connection with complaint lodged against him by one
Sri M.A. Samad. After receiving such complaint, petitioner found
that Respondents 6 to 16 have created false and fabricated
documents. Petitioner lodged a complaint before Respondent No.4
to freeze six documents based on which unofficial respondents are
falsely claiming title to subject property. Consequently, it appears,
Sub-Registrar had issued notice dated 07.03.2020 to unofficial
respondents to come forward for cancellation of sale deeds
executed by them, but they did not turn up. After obtaining legal
advice, Sub-Registrar lodged a complaint with P.S., I Town,
Nizamabad.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that
on receipt of complaint from Sub-Registrar, FIR No. 111 of 2021
was registered for the offences under Section 420 IPC. and Section
82 of Registration Act and investigation is being conducted.
However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that his client's
grievance is separate from that of Sub-Registrar. It is stated that
unofficial respondents are trying to grab the property of petitioner
to extract money and also trying to trespass into his property by
indulging in blackmailing.
This Court is of the opinion that Respondent No.5 -
Station House Officer ought to have conducted preliminary enquiry
pursuant to complaint dated 25.02.2021 submitted by petitioner
without reference to FIR No. 111 of 2021 registered pursuant to
complaint lodged by Sub-Registrar.
In the circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed of
directing Respondent No.5 - Station House Officer to act upon
complaint dated 25.02.2021 lodged by petitioner and take
appropriate action in accordance with law without reference to FIR
No. 111 of 2020. No costs.
Now, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits
that petitioner was already informed vide notice dated 15.10.2021
that FIR No. 111 of 2021 was lodged and his complaint dated
25.02.2021 was closed. However, this Court is of the view that
complaint of the petitioner dated 25.02.2021 should have been
separately inquired by following the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Lalitha Kumari v. State of U.P.1.
Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall
stand closed.
_________________________
B.VIJAYSEN REDDY,J
09th November 2021
ksld
(2014) 2 SCC 1
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients
instructed him not to press the contempt case.
Recording the above submission, the contempt case is closed
as not pressed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand
closed.
