L. Srisailam v. The State of Telangana

L. Saritha, W/o Srisailam, Aged about 26 yea$, Occ Housewife, Ri/o Lakshmidevigudem Village, Gunampod Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in interfering into the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner and also interfering into the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 and calling the petitioner to the police station and threatening and creating panic situation and blackmailing the petitioner to settle the dispute with the respondent No.7 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 not to interfere into the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner and also not to interfere into the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7, not to call the petitioner to the police station and not to threaten and create panic situation and blackmailing the petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under Section 1s'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court m,?v be pleased to oirect the respondent Nos 5 and 6 not to interfere into ihe peaceful life ino tiuerty oi tre petitioner and also not to interfere into the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7, not to call the petitioner to the police station and not to threaten and create panic situation and black mailing ir,e petitione, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 6: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.7715 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner, Iearned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the u,rit petition is taken up for hearing a-nd disposal at admission stagc.

2. Having regard to the nature of lis involved in the Writ Petition and the manncr o[ disposal, thrs Court rs of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ- Petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his marriage with the 7ft respondent was performed on 03.06.2O22; and chat the 7th responden t after some time hurd developed grudge against the petitioner and left his company and is living with her parents.

4. It is the further contcntion o[ the pctitkrner that though the 7h respondent had lodgcd,<:omplainl against the petitioner earlier under Section 498A of lPC, which is pcnding considcration before the Junior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, the respondents-authorities are regularly calling the petitioner to policc station and are interfering in the matrimonial disputes without any further case 2 being registcrerl, thcreby meddling n'ith the pet i-,io1tcr,s life and liberty, whiclL action ir is contended is highly illelial, arbitrary and in violation [ .\rl-icle 2 I of the Constitution of India. 5 Per contra, icarned Government Pleader for l,{orne appearir-rg on behalf of respondents submits that the 7rh rr:spondenl herein had approar:hed thc respondents-authorities ancl lodged a complaint on 07 .O3.20'25 claiming that the petilioner along u,ith his mother ,Lnd sistcr are harassing her, by lre ating and also abusing in filthy lzrnguage, and sought for initiatio I of acrion.

6. Learnec Govcrnment Pleader further submits that rhe responden ts-.rut h ori tie s on receiving the aforesaicl complaint have made a GD entry on 07.O3.2O25 and called the 1>t:titioncr for the purpose ol counseling. However, the petitioner di<l not attend and instead appro.rched this Court by filirrg the prescnt rJ,/rit petition.

7. It is als,r submitted by the learned. Governrrent plcader that earlier based on t l.rc complaint made by the 7th re spondent, the authorities ha re already registered a case uide Cr.lrlc,. 1 I 2024 under Sections 498-,\ IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. on 02.OI.2024, wherein chargo sheet was already filed before lhe concerned Court, wl-rich was taken cognizance and numbered as CC.No.S27 of 2024, and the sarre s pending consideraticln. 3

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, the authorities have already filed a chargc sheet in the crime registered earlier, the authorities have only called the pe[itioner based on the subsequent complaint made by the 7th respondent on 07.O3.2025 for counseling, but the petitioncr choosc not to appear before the authorities on the said daLe; and that cxcepl- calling the petitioner for enquiry into the aforesaid complaint lodged by the 7tl' respondent, the authorities are not interfcring u'ith rhe personal tife and liberty of the petitioncr or in the matrimonial dispute, which is already sub judice before the concerned Court.

9. I have taken note of the re spcctive submissions made.

10. Having regard to the submissions made as above, and since, a case in Cr.No.l/2O24 has already been registered against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC and Scction 3 & 4 of D.P.Act, based on the complaint made by thc 7Lr' respondcnt, wherein on filing of charge sheet before rhe concerned Court, being numbered as CC.No.527 12024 and is pending conside ration, it cannot be assumed that the 7th respondent is continuing to live with the pe[itioner thereafter for her to allege as being subjected to harassment as claimed by her in the subsequent complaint, d1.O7.03.2025. I t 4 -,,-

11. Furtht'r, it is also to be noted that since, the respondents- authorities r n receiving the aforcsaid complarnt having made a GD entry and c allcd thc petilioncr for counse Iing and thc pctitroner having not i ppezrred for counst:ling, this Court :s of thc view tl.rat thc respondcn Ls- au tho ri lies are to be directed not to interfere r.r,ith thc life and personal Iibcrly of tl're petitioner or into the matrimonial dispute betu,een the petitioner and the 7th respondcnt, u,rthout follou'ing due process of Iaw. \').. Subler t to the above direction, the Writ Pr:t jtion is disposcd oL No ordel as to costs

13. Q6nss,luently, miscellancous pctitions, if any, pcnding IN thcse r.l.rit pc titions shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Director (leneral of Police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad 3. The Superintended of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4. The Deputy S:perintended of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 5. The Station House Officer, Nalgonda-l Town Police Station, Nalgonda District 6. The Station H,tuse Officer, Women Police Station, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. One CC to SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copiers YA' 7 8 I KKS I-S HIGH COURT DATED:20 10312025 ORDER WP.No.7715 of 2025 . rtE SI4 16- oR k 1i nrn pgn ({\( D c. Jt t r- rrF.C t t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A t-L 1)