High Court · 2025

9. HDFC paqk_!!d..8th Flbor, HDFC Ban(HouselRoad No.1 Banjara Hiils, 10.TATA CAPITAL LIMITE'D,F|ot.No.3 to 6, Road"No 3m Auto plaza Banjara _ . lJtLtq,tly9.gtabad 500 034 Rep by its Recovery Manager 1 1. YES F_ANK Limited, Office at'Sy'No. 31, (otdi 31 /2 (tiew) Rajbhavan Road, . ^ 9_oli,t_igy{q ttylgtaQel Rep by its Recovery Manager 12.IDFC FIRST BANK, Office at Giound Ftoor, itVR Tdwer No. 6-3-1089. Rai Qfgv_an Road, Nearby Volkswagen Showroom Somajiguda, HyderabaO S60 082 Rep by its Recovery Manager

13. lncred Financial Services Ltd., Office at 4th Floor, BRR Complex, HSBC Buildjng. lnCred Finance, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda Hyderabad 500 082 Rep by its Recovery Officer

14. Bandhan Bank, Office at H No. 8-2-68O14A, 1st Floor BS Spaces, Road No.12, NBTtrlagar Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034 Rep by its Recovery Agent

15. HDFC BANK, CREDIT CARD DIVISION Office at 8th Ftoor, HDFC Bank H-ouse, Road No.1 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034 Rep by its Recovery Manager

16. RBL Bank, Credit Card Division Office at D No. 6-3-864/5, Ground Floor, AmeerpetRoad, Greenlands, Begumpet, Hyderabad tOO 016 Rep by its Recovery Manager ...RESPONDENTS 'l Petition under l\rlicle 226 ot the Constitution of ln,Jia praying that in the circumstances st;rted in the affidavit fired therewith, the High ,.)ourt may be preased to issue zr writ order or Direction more particurarry one irr the nature of writ of Mandamus, der:raring the action of the respondents porice particurarry 3 to 7 respondent pori:e in not providing the protection to the petitir:ner from the hands of the rer:overy agents of unofficiar resBondents B tr: 16 without considering the compr;rint dated 1g.02.2025 of the petitioner and not regisiering any crime against rhe u nofficiar respondents g to 16 by the porice is highry i[egar, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and al:so violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-rr of constitution of rndia and consequenlry direct the respondents porice to r:gister the FrR against the unofficiar respondents g to 16 by providing protection to the petitioner from the hands of the recovery agents of the unofficiar responderrts g to 16 by considering the compraint dated 19.02.202s of the petitioner in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in s:pport of the petition, the High courl may, be preased to Direct the respondents p'orice particurarry 6th respondent por ce to rer;ister a case against the unoffic ar respondents g to 16 basing on the compraint of the petitioner daled 19 02.2025 by providing the protection to the petitiorrer from the hands of the recovery ar;ents of the respondents 4 to 16, disposar of the above main writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. BOLLU NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respqnclent Nos.1 to 7: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Responclent Nos.g to 16: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.8496 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos,1 to 7 and perused the record.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ petition at the admission stage and the nature of /s involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.g to 16 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that without her knowledge various loans have been obtained by her husband on her name from respondent Nos.8 to 16, and after his demise, respondent Nos.g to 16 are calling upon her to pay the aforesaid loan and harassing her.

4. Petitioner further contends that since the unofficial respondents are harassing her regularly, she has approached the respondents-authorities and lodged a complaint on L9.02.2025 against respondent Nos.B to 16 and sought for being provided with police protection from the hands of the recovery agents of the unofficial respondents and in spite of the petitioner submitting aforesaid representation, the authorities have not taken any action thereon nor provided police protection to the petitioner from the hands of recovery agents of respondent Nos.B to 16, which action it is contended as illegal and arbitrary. r' { l l

5. Per contrc, Iearned Government Pleader for Home appearing on 2 behalf of r€rspondent Nos.1 to 7 would submit that the petitir:ner on her own admission €rdmit to the fact of her husbanC availing loans in her name to the tune cf about Rs.50,00,000/- payable in EqLrated Monthly Installments; (EIt1.1), and the said loans availed.have been credited to her account and as :;uch, the petitioner cannot claim the said l,)ans having been availed without her knowledge.

6. Learned (;overnment Pleader by drawing the attention of this Court to the bank statement would contend that the EMIs are also recoverable from the petitioner's account only and as such petitioner cannot be allowed to olead that she not being aware of availing such loan in her name by her husband and that the unofficial re:spondents are now coercing her to pay the loans for which she is not responsible.

7. Learrred (3overnment Pleader further submits that thr: petitioner being a defaulter of the loans availed by her cannot seel: for police protection, and such protection is only extended on the basis of threat perception e:valuated by the committee constituted for the said purpose. B. I hav= taken note of the aforesaid submissions rnade.

9. Thou,lh the petitioner claims of being ignorant of the loans standing in her name, a perusal of the loans extended by the unofficial respondents would show that the aforesaid loans have been sanctioned in the name of the petitioner herself and credited to her bank account.

10. Further, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of her husband 3 having availed loans without her knowledge, as in order to grant loans, the petitioner would be required to furnish her pay slips to the unolficial respondents. Further, as seen from the documents on record, the loan amounts have also been credited into petitioner's account and EMIS were also being paid from the said account. Thus, the claim of the petitioner of she not being aware of the loans taken during the life time of her husband cannot be accepted as valid claim for her to approach this Court and claim of harassment by unofflcial respondents 8 to 16 for recovery of the aforesaid loan or that she having not availed such loans.

11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition as field is wholly misconceived apart from abuse of process,of law and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

72. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS i I oF 2025 costs euantified by Ho"'bbwJ;I3;84e6 petitioner herein is directed to pay costs of Rs.2,5001 (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred 9nly) to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad within Foui weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order 2,500 - 00 2,500 - 00 //TRUE COPYII SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGMRAR sEciloN o(rrcen r. {ne.se&d*i4rr,Hi+ih.,Gourt Legal rservic66 comffiee, tifdbrabao. To,

2. The Principar secretary, Home Department, state of rerangana, secretariat, Hyderabad r General of Police, state of relansana, DGP office: Lakdikapoor, ' I?!3riS:f 4 The Commir;siorer of porice, Hyderabad commissionerate, Hyderabad 5. The Commir;siorer of police, CiG;;b;d d6mr,r",onurate, Cyherabad 6. The Commis;sioner of police, #;h;1;;;dommrssronerate Rachakonda 7. The Station Hou:;e Officer, Ja*;h;;;;g;;pJ;; Si;6;:' i;;;;:ffi;;;", S The station Jous;e officer, rv_adhapur porice station, Madhapur Hvderabad ."-" ' ,."",-"- e one cc to llRt. BoLLU^NAGARA:U Aj;;;t" topiJCI- FoR HoME ;High c6r"'r r"iii;.si"t-uiirrur,nsyana [oUr] 1?.IWS 33%,3.35 Hyderabad MBC HIGH COURT DATED:2 410412025 ETro ( 4 Y 1'.' s' .$ v > (,' i:- \\c \\' .) ir H I' ,.) i, \.r,/ / ? ORDER W.P.No.8496 of 2025 I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS