Summary: The court dismissed a request to officially record a crime, saying this isn't the right way to do it. The person who made the request can still try other legal methods.
Chitturi Venkata Surya Prasad, the person who made the request, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. He wanted the court to say that the police (The Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad) did something wrong by not acting on his report from June 19, 2015. He wanted a crime to be officially recorded against Annapureddy Vijaya Lakshmi, Annapureddy Lakshmi Kasamma, and Balu Kumar.
Justice N. Tukaramji was in charge of the case. The court noted that no one showed up for Chitturi Venkata Surya Prasad. However, Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, was there for the State of Telangana, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station. He argued that the request wasn't valid because asking the court to order the recording of a crime isn't allowed according to established rules.
The court mentioned the Supreme Court's decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and other cases, which made it clear that this type of petition isn't the right way to deal with complaints about recording crimes. There are other ways to handle this under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
"A petition asking for help with filing or recording a crime/FIR isn't allowed when there are better options available."
The court dismissed the request to officially record a crime because it wasn't the right way to go about it. However, it allowed Chitturi Venkata Surya Prasad to try other legal methods.
"The person making the request is free to use other legal options available."
And with that, the case was closed on August 21, 2025, with no decision about who should pay for the court costs. Any other pending requests were also closed.
