Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Sri. Chaluvagali Raghavendra Raju vs The Registrar, Judical on 13 April, 2023

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                     Writ Petition No.9850 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard Mr.K.Suneel Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

"For the reasons stated in the above accompanying petition, the petitioners herein pray that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the in-action of the respondent No.2 and 3 for not registering the complaint in the vide file SR No.844 of 2022 is an illegal, arbitrary and against Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently pass order to issue attested or certified copies of unmarked documents filed in the complaint filed in the vide file SR No.844 of 2022 to file in the EP.No.23 of 2019 in the High Court at Hyderabad for marking documents and consequently pass order to register the complaint for further proceeding against accused in the complaint and pass order or orders as this Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

3. From the above, it is evident that the writ petition has been filed seeking disparate reliefs unconnected with each other.

2

4. Insofar the first grievance is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to avail his remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, in respect of the second grievance, i.e., non-furnishing of attested / certified copies of unmarked documents, we find that application for the same was submitted in the office of respondent No.3 only on 10.04.2023 on which date the writ petition came to be filed. Such a prayer is therefore premature. That apart the person against whom petitioner seeks to register the complaint has not been arrayed as a respondent in the present proceedings.

5. That being the position, we do not find any good ground to entertain the writ petition.

6. Subject to the observations made above, writ petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ 13.04.2023 MRM