Telangana High Court
Mr. Sunkara Naresh vs The State Of Telanagana on 19 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
WRIT PETITION No.27001 of 2025
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3
seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent
No.2 in registering FIR No.483 of 2025, as arbitrary and
unconstitutional and further to declare the complaint against the
petitioner as null and void.
2. Heard Sri Balaiah B, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Maheswar Rajiv, learned Government Pleader for Home.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner discharges services to various authorities and that they
would pay him on taking his legal advice and that the de facto
complainant has utilized his services and has not paid, and just to
escape the said liability, she filed a false complaint against him. He
further submitted that the HYDRA Officials have called the petitioner
to settle the matter which itself shows the wrongful involvement of the
authorities, which is not at all required. He therefore, submitted that
the complaint itself is false. The police have not followed the due
process of law in registering the complaint and without following any
procedure under Section 173(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
2 ETD,J
Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), they are trying to apprehend the
petitioner. He therefore, prayed to declare the action of the
respondents as unconstitutional and also to declare the complaint to
be null and void.
4. Learned Government pleader for Home has submitted
that the contents of the compliant do point out the allegations against
the petitioner herein. It is alleged that one Chaitanya Pannala came
to the office of the Commissioner, HYDRA and lodged a petition
stating that she is the owner of the open land and that M/s. Vertex
Developers had unlawfully laid a 150 feet road through her property
without any prior permission from her and the Commissioner,
HYDRA, endorsed the same to the ACP, HYDRA to enquire and
report and that as a part of enquiry, it came to know that said
Chaitanya Pannala had discussed about the encroachment issue with
her cousin Mr. Praveen and her cousin introduced the petitioner
stating that he is a legal advisor and that he would take care of the
issue. The petitioner introduced his friend Chandu Srinivas stating
that he has good connections with the HYDRA officials and inturn, the
said Chandu Srinivas communicated with her over phone and
assured that he will manage with the HYDRA. Believing that, she has
given amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs to her cousin Praveen and Praveen
3 ETD,J
told her that he will hand it over to the petitioner herein. It is further
alleged that in the last week of June, 2025, the petitioner went to her
house located at Maheshwaram and asked her to pay the remaining
amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs, but she postponed to give him the money
as the said day was Amavasya and on the following day, the
petitioner sent a person to her house for collecting the money and at
that time, she made a phone call to the petitioner and confirmed that
the person came to her house was sent by the petitioner only and
thus, believing the said words, she has handed over the total cash of
Rs.30.00 lakhs to him. With the said allegations, the ACP, HYDRA
has addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, Pahadi Shareef
Police Station, Rachakonda, requesting him to take legal action
against the individuals mentioned therein i.e. Praveen, Sunkari
Naresh and Chandu Srinivas. The petitioner herein is accused No.3.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that
the allegations in the complaint do point out against the petitioner
herein and the said allegations need to be investigated into and as
the investigation is in progress, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the matter pertains to a private affair of an individual. If
at all the individual concerned has any grievance, she might have
4 ETD,J
lodged the complaint directly with the police, but in the present case,
the ACP, HYDRA has lodged the complaint, which is not correct and
that the authorities should not create the litigation and the HYDRA
Officials cannot entertain any complaint on private properties. He
further submitted that the petitioner is an Advocate and the
complainant has no locus standi to lodge the complaint and therefore,
prays to declare the FIR as null and void.
7. Perused the record.
8. A perusal of the complaint discloses serious allegations
against the petitioner. The alleged collusion among the three
individuals and extracting the money from the victim needs to be
investigated into. The allegations in the complaint are serious in
nature.
9. With regard to formation of HYDRA, G.O.Ms. No.99
dated 19.07.2024 was issued, which discloses that the HYDRA is a
dedicated Agency for planning, organizing, coordinating and
implementing the measures for preparedness and prevention of urban
disasters for coordination with other State and National Agencies for
prompt response and rescue operations in any disaster situation or
disaster that may arise in this region.
5 ETD,J
10. In the present case, the allegations in the complaint point
out that the petitioner in collusion with other accused had taken
amount from one Chaitnya Pannala stating that they would get
resolved the issue of her land being encroached by M/s. Vertex
Developers, with HYDRA Officials. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the said allegation pertains to the
amount taken by the accused from the said lady on the pretext of
resolving her dispute, does not fall within the purview of the duties
entrusted to HYDRA. That, if at all she has lodged the complaint for
resolving her problem with the HYDRA, they could have acted upon
with regard to the asset protection, disaster management, logistic
support or other functions as enshrined in the G.O.Ms. No.99. He
further contended that the present complaint does not fall under any
of these definitions. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the
HYDRA officials to initiate a complaint against the petitioner herein.
In case, if the alleged victim i.e. Chaitanya Pannala is aggrieved in
any manner by the acts of the petitioner herein, she should knock the
doors through appropriate remedies according to law.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohamood Ali & Ors. v.
6 ETD,J
State of U.P. and others 1 contending that the court exercising
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to get the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the grounds that such
proceeding are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances,
the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
close and that if need be, with due care and circumspection try to
read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India
need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to
take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation of
the case.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the complaint must have been lodged by the alleged victim i.e.
Chaitanya Pannala and that the HYDRA official is no way concerned
with lodging the complaint. A careful perusal of the complaint reveals
that the ACP, HYDRA has lodged a complaint with the SI of Police,
Pahadshareef Police Station, alleging that the petitioner along with
other accused have not only deceived the woman by taking Rs.50.00
lakhs from her but also attempted to defame the name of the HYDRA
by falsely claiming that her land issue would be resolved in exchange
Crl.A. No.2341 of 2023 dated 08.08.2023
7 ETD,J
for payment to HYDRA officials. Since the petitioner and other
accused have allegedly taken the name of the HYDRA officials while
inducing the victim to pay money of Rs.50.00 lakhs, the ACP, HYDRA
has lodged the complaint. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the police are proceeding with the case
without there being any compliance of Section 173(3) of BNSS, as
per the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Home, the
investigation is on its nascent stage and that the police bound by the
due process of law and they shall abide by the legal principles. The
offences alleged are under Sections 318(4) and 318(2) of BNS. The
ingredients of Sections 318(4) and 318(2) of BNS are pointed out as
per the allegations leveled in the compliant. Thus, the truth or
otherwise of the allegations are the subject of trial. Therefore, the
complaint cannot be declared to be null and void. Hence, the writ
petition is devoid of merits and therefore, the same is liable to be
dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
September 19, 2025
KTL
