[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Madhavaram Rameswara Rao, ... vs The Station House Officer, ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 1622 OF 2007
DATE: 30.03.2026
Between :
Madhavaram Rameswara Rao
... Petitioner
AND
The Station House Officer, Pedda Kothapalli Police Station,
Mahabubnagar District, and nine others.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of
the writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No.
1,4,9 and 10 herein in not acting upon the complaints
dt. 16-2-1994, 28-2-2001 and 3-2-2006 made by the deceased and
filing false counter-affidavit and reports before Hon'ble High Court,
National Human Rights Commission and Andhra Pradesh State
Human Rights Commission dt. 10-11-1997, 28-5-2001 and
10-12-2006 as illegal and arbitrary against non discharge of lawful
duties and violation of principles of natural justice and against
Art. 21 of the Constitution of India consequently prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent No. 6 herein to
constitute an enquiry commission to probe the cause of death of
NTR,J
deceased subject matter of Crime No. 790/2006 of P.S. Saifabad
and basing on the enquiry report the Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to direct the respondent No. 6 herein to punish erring
police officials and award the appropriate compensation to the
deceased family members, and pass such other order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice."
2. I have heard Ms. Sakshi Jha, learned counsel, representing
Mr. V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Pradeep,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for
respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 8.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been instituted challenging the alleged inaction of
the respondent/police authorities in failing to take appropriate steps on
the complaints submitted by the petitioner's deceased father
dated 16.02.1994, 28.02.2001, and 03.02.2006. It is further contended
that the respondents have filed false counter affidavits and reports before
the National Human Rights Commission and that, in the interest of justice,
an independent Inquiry Commission ought to be constituted to investigate
the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased in Crime No. 790
of 2006 registered at Police Station Saifabad. Accordingly, the petitioner
seeks issuance of appropriate writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
NTR,J
4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
submits that it is an admitted position that on 08.12.2006, the petitioner's
father committed suicide within the premises of the Chief Minister's Office
situated at the Secretariat, Hyderabad. Pursuant thereto, Crime No. 790
of 2006 was duly registered, and a thorough investigation was conducted
by the competent police authorities. Upon consideration of the Post-
Mortem Examination Report, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)
Report, and other material evidence collected during the course of
investigation, a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure came to be filed on 20.01.2009, categorizing the case as
"Action Dropped." It is further submitted that due notice of the said
closure report was served upon the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is
contended that no lis survives for adjudication by this Court, and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have perused the material available on record and considered the
submissions advanced on either side.
6. The principal grievance of the petitioner pertains to the alleged
failure of the police authorities to act upon the representations submitted
by his deceased father over a prolonged period, namely in the years
1994, 2001, and 2006. It is also an admitted fact that the matter was
brought to the notice of the Human Rights Commission, upon which an
NTR,J
inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police and a report was
submitted recommending closure of further proceedings.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not ordinarily
interfere with the outcome of a completed investigation unless there is
clear material indicating procedural irregularity, perversity, or miscarriage
of justice. However, the petitioner has not placed on record any cogent
material or prima facie evidence to demonstrate that the action taken by
the police authorities was arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of established
legal procedure. Reference may be made to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 INSC 1243,
wherein it was held that the appropriate remedy against defective or
improper investigation lies before the Magistrate under the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Further, the present petition suffers from unexplained delay and
laches, as the last representation of the deceased dates back to the year
2006, whereas the writ petition has been filed after a lapse of nearly a
decade. It is well settled that stale claims ought not to be entertained in
writ jurisdiction unless satisfactorily explained.
NTR,J
9. Moreover, the pleadings of the petitioner themselves disclose that
the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide in front of the
Chief Minister's Office. The investigation conducted by the police,
including the Post-Mortem Report and the FSL Report, conclusively
establishes that the cause of death was ingestion of Endosulfan, an
insecticide poison. The final report also reflects that statements of
relevant witnesses, including independent persons, were recorded, and
upon due consideration thereof, the investigating agency arrived at the
conclusion that the death was suicidal in nature.
10. In view of the above findings and in the absence of any substantive
material casting doubt on the fairness or correctness of the investigation,
the prayer for constitution of an Inquiry Commission to ascertain the
cause of death does not merit consideration. Courts have consistently
held that a roving or fishing inquiry cannot be directed in the absence of
credible material.
11. Nevertheless, it is made clear that if the petitioner remains
aggrieved by the filing of the final report, it is open to him to avail
appropriate remedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance
with law.
NTR,J
12. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 30.03.2026
svl
