High Court · 2025

3. Vedire Sriram Reddy, S/o Vedire Venkat Reddy, Aged 44 years, Occ Eng i neer, Rio 2-5-1 25, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Wara nga I Di strict.

4. Vallapu Reddy Geeta Bhavani, W/o Vallapureddy Hemanth Kumar Aged 45 Yrs, Occ House Wife R/o 1000 Dancan Velle, Hutchinson, Kansa State USA Presently Rio Tulip 73, LandT Towers Gachibowli Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS AND

1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Buldings Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police Govemment of, A.P. Hyderabad 3. The Superintendent of Police Warangal, Warangal District. 4. Station House Officer, P.S.ThonurWarangal Rural, Warangal District 5. Station House Officer, P.S SubedariWarangal Urban, Warangal District 6. Goli Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Late Gopal Reddy Aged 62 Yrs, Occ Retd lnspector of Police Rio H.No. 8-2-2681118/18 Road No.3, Aurora Colony, Bajara Hills, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 6th respondent in invoking and using the police and criminal administration machinery for the purpose of benefiting the 6th respondent, a retired police officer for settling private property disputes as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional an abuse of process of law and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 not to use the police and criminal administration for any ulterior purpose. : Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue interim directions directing the respondents 1 'to 5 to prevent the abuse and wrongful use of police machinery and criminal law administration for favouring the 6th respondernt in his private disputes, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'bte Court may deem fit and proper in the circumsternces of the case. Gounsel for the Petitioner : Ms.PALLA HARINI DEVI, rep., SRI S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for ttre Respondents No.1to5 : AGP FOR HOME Gounsel forthe Respondents No.6: -- The Court made the follorving: ORDER i .j ,l ,t ;, I't ii) THE HON'BLT SRI JI'STICI VNIITI RAMAKRISHNA RTDDY WRIT PEIITIOII No. IO187 of 2O14 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.6 in invoking and using the police and criminal administration machinery for the purpose of benefiting the respondent No.6, a retired police offlcer for settling private property disputes as illrcgal, arbitrary and unconstihrtional an abuse of pnocess of law and consequential prayer to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 ndt to use the police and criminal administration for any ulterior pur1rcse."

2. Heard Ms. Palla Harini Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners on record and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent NoS.1 to 5.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has drawn the attention of this CourtTo-the written instructiogs issued by the I 2 -i(\ S.I of Police, Subedari Police Station, Warangal District dated OI.O4.2O14, wherein it was stated that respondent No.6 had lodged a complaint on 28.L2.2O13, through his GPA holder, viz., Nallu .Ramappa Reddy with the S.H.O., Subedari Police Station, Warangal against the petitioners in Crime No.652 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 2Og, 2lO, 223, 4O4, . 406,4L7,4Ig,42O,426,427,5O4 r/w. Section 34 ofthe IPC and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. After conducting the d.ue investigation, the said crime was closed. as "Civil In Nattrre". It . is further stated that another F.I.R.No.65O oi 2O13 was registered against the petitioners upon a complaint lodged by one Ch. Bapureddy on 26.12.2013 with tlle S.H.O, Subedari Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 423, 426, 427, 447, 477-A and 504 of IPC and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and the said crime too was closed as "Action Dropped".

4. It is further state'l that, exceptr registering the above crimes, the police never interfered with the life or liberty of the petitioners nor did they involve in the underlying civil disputes between the parties. Accordingly, it is stated that cause in the presenl: writ petition does not survive for adjudication. \(i \l 3

5. Recording the above written instmctions date O9.O4.2OL4 submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, and in view of the categorical statement that the police never interfered in the civil disputes, this Court finds no further cause for continuation of tJle present proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere in the civil disputes between the p4rties except in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in tlle appeals, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ REDDY REGISTRAR OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Telangana State Hyderabad

2. The Director General of Police Govemment of, A,P. Hyderabad 3. The Superintendent of Police warangal, warangal District. 4. The Station House Officer, P.S.Thorrur Warangal Rural, Warangal District 5. The station House Officer, P.s Subedari warangal Urban, warangal District 6. One CC to SRI S.NIRANJAN REDDY, Advocate: IOPUC] 7 . Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana' [OUT] 8. Two CD CoPies BSKdl i: I TT]ti E THE S ( (, 1 J 1,tirrr ,'-.$ * WP.No.'10187 of 2014 P 3 t ING OF THE WRIT PETITION UT {*r*