D. Uday Kiran v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 an order or orders or direction or a writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondent No.4 in interfering with the personal liberty and life of petitioner, by calling him to the police station in the guise of investigation as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondent No.3 to take action against the respondent No.4 basing on the representation of petitioner dated 10.06.2016 and

18.O7.2016. -n }I 1s :st* ,t:- .' ',"r, -.' ;j :V:i -\': l. r' .:.4 '.$, ! l.A. NO: 2 OF 20116(WPMP. NO: 30584 OF 2016) 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 direct respondent No.4 not to interfering in civil disputes and with the personal liberty and life of petitioner in the guise of investigation, pending disposal of the above writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(\IWMP. NO: 3169 OF 2016) BETWEEN:

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Prl Secretary. Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Director (3eneral of Police Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Commiss;ioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 4. The Station l-louse Officer, SR Nagar Poltce Station, Hyderabad 5. The Sub lnspector of Police, SR Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad ..Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 5 AND

1. D.Uday Kirarr, son of Guruswami, Occ: Business r/o. Vikaspuri colony, Erragadda, Hyderabad. . . . . . ...RespondenUPetitioner

2.G.Laxminaay;1na, son of late Veeraiah, Occ: Retired Employee r/o.H.No.'l1-3-1, Mohammed Guda, Sitafalmandi, Secunderabad. (R-2 is not necerssary party to this petition) ......RespondenURespondent No.6 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 pteased to vacate the interim orders passed in WP No. 24768 of 2016 dated 26.7.2016. a Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R PRANEETH CHANDRA REPRESENTING M/S. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for tl.re Respondents No 1 To 5: AGP FOR HOME Gounsel for tl"re Respondent No 6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER tA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT ITION No.24768 oF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief/s:- "...to issue an order or orders or direction or a writ one in the nature of Wdt of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondent No.4 in intcrflcring with the personal liberry and ]ife of petitioner, by calling him to the police station in the guise of investigation as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural iusrice, consequentlv direct thc respondent No.3 to take action against the respondent No.4 basing on the representation of petitioner dated L0.06.2016 and 1,8.07.2016. and pass... "

2. Heard Mr. R.Praneeth Chandra, learned counsel representing Mrs. Pillix Law Firm appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondbnt No. 4 has been interfering wlth the personal life and liberty of the petitioner under the pretext of investigation in Crime No. 1241 of

2009. He further submits that a charge sheet has already been filed and Crime No. 1241 of 2009 has been taken on file by the learned 2 !t--\ \. ,-. lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Nevertheless, despite the filing of the charge sheet, the alleged interference continues, and therefore counsel prays for appropriate directions frcm this Court.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, submits that respondent No. 4 has not interfered rarith the petitioner's personal life and liberty, except to the limited extr-.nt of requiring his presence in connection with the investigation. lt is contended that the allegations of the petitioner are unsupported by any specific particulars or material evidence. Accordingl'1, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material placed on record

6. Having considered the assertions of the petitioner and the submissiorrs of the respondents, and keeping in view the settled limitations on the powers of the police even during the pendency of criminal proceedings, this Court is of the view that appropriate safeguards are warranted. Accordingly, respondent No. 4, as w;}lL 7 J as the other police authorities, are directed not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner, save and except in strict compliance with law and by following due process.

7. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII To

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State o Buildings, Hyderabad. Sd/. P.C. SULEKH ISTANT R TRAR I S CTION OFFICER ana, Secretariat

7. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City Basheerbagh Hyderabad The Station House Officer, S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. The Sub lnspector of Police, S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad One CC to SRI PILLIX LAW FIRM, Advocatqs [OPUCI Two CCs to GP for HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

8. Two CD Copies D.N MP NT HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 ORDER WP.No.24768 of 2016 THL. S 3 0 JAN 2026 ?_ t :z1l r 'rk -t) \ frsn.', * a DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s \slt\'