High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent police in interfering into the civil disputes between the husband of the petitioner and the 4th respondent and not to interfere the police into the civil disputes at the instance of the 4th respondent without registering any case, directing the petitioner to come down to the police station to settle the issue and execute the document is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents no. 3 police not to interfere into the civil disputes by harassing the a .! i l:;x"*-= petitioner to come to the police station by sending the worren police and directing to execute the document in favour of 4th respondent wittr :he collusion of the 4th respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High er,,rrrt may be pleased to Direct the respondents police not to harass the petitioner ry calling to the police station by interfering into the civil disputes by harassing the petitroner to setfle the matter with the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petitron. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETf f Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER ,.l"Erifii, *-"1 l:'.i+.,'. ,.+i,"i THE HONOURABLE SIII IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAIT WRIT PETITION No.8215 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for tlrc pctitiorrer ancl learncd Assista rr t Government Pleader for Homc appcaring for rcspondent Nos.1 to 3. With thcir consent, this writ petition is bcirrg taken up for disposal at the adnrissiorr

2. This writ petition is filccl by the 1:e-titioner aggrieved by thc actiorr of tl-re 3^1 respondent interferir-rg irrto thc civil disputcs between thc husband of the petitioner and the r[th lgspondent, at the instattcc o{ -ltr' respondent without registering any case, directing the petitioner to corn(' down to police station to settle the issue and execute the document as illegal, arbitary and against the principles of uatural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21. and 300-A of (-onstitution o[ Inc] ia arrtl consequently, seeking a direction to tlrc respondcnt No.3 not to intcrfolt' into the civii disputes by harassing thc pctitioner to come to tltc polico st.rtlon by sending the women police anc{ directing to execute thc document in favour of 4d' respondent with the collusion of 4th respondct.tt

3. The brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioner's lrusbarrd used to run a business in the name and style Akshaya Bible Housc and doing service to Christian Community. lt is subrnittecl that petitioncr's husband antl respondent No.4 are known to eaclr othcr and respondent No.{ has takt:n *rll , J ]i 2 scvcral hand loan-s from sevcral persor.rs including the Tclir rgara Financc and sorvcral suits were filed against 4th rcspondent a.d 1-,:.rtior.. r.'s husbanrr scttlt'cl thc said issues and the husba.d .f petitioner died .n 15.0i.2024. It is lu'th.r submittc(l that the Jtl,responrlerrt taki,g ad'ant;-.,l. of rhc c.iemisc.I potiti()ltcr's husbancl, approached thr: pctitioner and her fr.i, r.rd 51311,,, g1-lo, 1," n,oulrl look after them and n hcn the petitioner refused ft,r Lhe saicl pr.oposal, r'('sp()n(l('nt No.4 started harassing tlre petitionel stating il.et thc petitiouer's IrusLrirrrrl is due an amount to r-espondent No.4 and ciemarLt JLI t() L):rJ' thc saitl .rrrrount, lirr r.vhich pctitioner rejectecl thc saicl dernanri br rforming that hcr Irrrslranrl ncver inforrnerl about such rlcbt. lt is furt ri,r. suLrmitlcd that f('\P()n(lrnI Ntt.4 borc grul1g,c on the pctitioner anc{ :rppr,r.rch(]cl thc C.l ancl S.ll.L). ol.Subedari I'olice Station, called the petitioner to police station on 11 .02.2025 at 06:25 PM, upo. rn.hich t[-re pctitioner i.formc,,l liat she is no rvav c()l)ccnre(i rvith thc said h'ansaction and warned thc rerPOnllg11t Ncr.-l in Ir-'spccI oi his rnrsLrehaviour towards petitioner and lrcr tlicr-rc1. It is furthor srrbrrittcd that thc petitioncr filcd w.P.No.4655 of 2025 bcrirre tl-ris Court antl .n ltl.()2.2025, thc said rnatter came up for final hcarinl;, on tltat Subctlari Iblrct, irriorrnecl that a courplaint was endorsed by the rlommissioncr of l'olicr', o;r the complaint lodged by 4tl, respondent in rcspect of moneyr tralrsa.'tiolls betu,ecn the l.rusband of petitioncr and 4h resl:,ondent ar-rd thcr. itit' rrot intcrfering in[o the civil disputes, accordingll, tht: said \\.rit pctitron rvas clisposed of as police informed that they are not rrrtefering with the pclitioncr. It is f urther submitted that by suppressing the saicl fact, 4th I i i I I a,J J respondent again approached the 3'd resPondent and who in turn callcd tl're petitioner to come down to police station with phone No.8712685178 and is harassing the petitioner to settle thc issue by paying the amount to 'trtL respondent. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is f iled.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for llornc lr;rs submitted written instructions submittccl bv Assistant Commtssioncr o[ Police, Hanamkonda wherein it is submittecl that 3'd resPondent rcceiVtlcl representation through proper channel i.c., 2"d rcspondcnt ()n 31.12.2024 filerl by 4tL respondcnt stating that one Late Anil Kumar, his wife Smt. Kalpana taken Rs.'[ crore from him and they failed to rcpaY thc same sinct' so matrv ycars and wl-ren asked to petitioner about motrcy, she threatened hirn witl-r dire consequences to kill him. It is further submittt:cl thaL orl recciPt ol ihe saicl representation, 3'd respondetrt called the petitior-rer for cnquirv bul the petitioner did not attend the enquily, instead oi co-operating and appearing before 3d respondent, filed the present writ petition levclling falsc antl baseless allcgations and the petition filed by 4th rcspondcnt n as closecl untlcr civil nature.

5. In that view of the matter, since tl're responclcnts havc closecl tlle complaint/representation submitted by 4d. responrlent, [his writ pc[ition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4 to pursuc his remedies as availablc under law.

6. With these observations, this writ petitlon is disposetl of G r* I t. 'u Miscellancous applications, if any pending, shall s tand closed No r'-L. 4 ortlcr as to costs ,TRUE COPY// SEI/-,A t:'' .bRINIVASA REDDY *rarur REGtSTRAR i \. $a"r'or.r oFFrcER \ To, 1 2 4 5 6 The Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad The Commtssioner of Police, Hanumakonda Commissionerate, Hanumakonda The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hanumakonda Police Station, Hanumakonda Hanumakonda District One CC to SRI AJAY KUIVAR MADISETTY, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] Two CD Copies. M. BSK PSK I i l: HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 ORDER WP.No.8216 of 2025 . 21SEP 28fr , \ ( * PA EoHCT t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4:> /,,. 1 Iq t ili+ r{at*.n-,.'4}L {r, '? , r-! r. : , -a