Keesara 6andeep Reddy v. The State of Telangana

- Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances staied in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandanius to declare the action of the respondent No. 4 and 5 in harassing and threateningthepetitionerbycallingtothepolicestationtosettlethefamily disputes between the petitioner and his wife in the police station as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Arlicle 21of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not toinvolveinthefamilydisputesofthepetitionerandhiswifebycallingtothe police station. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Se ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstzrnces stated in the affidavit filed ir su:port of the petition, the High Court mzry be pleased to direct the respond:nts forthwith not to involve in _the lamily d sputes of the petitioner and his rvifer by calling to the police station, pendinl; c isposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Pelitiorrer : SRI MEKALA GOUTHAM KUMAR Counsel for the Res;porrdents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 1O3O4 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the _petitioner, Iearned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondent Nos.1 to 5, ard with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposai at admission stage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that respondent Nos.4 & 5 are calling the petitioner to the 4t' respondent-police station and harassing him by threatening to settle the family disputes with his wife, which action of the respondents-authorities, it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary, and without sanction of law.

3. Per contra, learned Governmcnt pleader appearing on behalf of respondents-authorities submits that one Smt K.Bhargavi had approached the 4ft respondent-authority and lodged a complaint on 24 .O3.2025 against the pe titioner herein, whom the complainant had claimed to be her husband, having necked her out of the house by taking custody of her children. 2

4. I-ear terl Government pleader further submits; _hirt since, the aforesaid :ornplaint has been lodged by none (r1he r than the petitioner's *, Ie, the authorities having regard to the 1a v laid down by the Apcx (lourt in Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of tJ.p.& Orsl had made a GJ) r:rrtry and called the petitioner tc thr. pc lice station before taki;rg trrther action on the aforesaid conrplair.t Icdged.

5. Learnerl Government pleader would further s..rbn its that the responde nt s-a rrthorities except causing preliminary e rquiry into the compla nt loclged by the petitioner,s wife, arr: neither- har.assing nor threaLc tir:g; the petitioner to settle the family dislrules \tith his wife, and tha , the petitioner was called only tbr I I- e purpose of enquiry into tl.Lc aforesaid complaint lodged agailst hr:n.

6. I hav<. tal:en note of the respective submissions mi. de 7 . Since t te petitioner,s wife, Smt K. Bharllar.i, having approached 1_he 4th respondent-authority and lodged a complaint on 24.O3.'.2C25i ,:laiming to have been beat by the petiticner herein and the petrtir;rLer having forcefuily taken custody .f th e children from her, a rd irs the case being matrimonial in nat-lr(), and the Hon'ble Supre;ne Court in Latita Kumari's case (1 supra) I,raving ' zor+ 121 scc r 3 directed the respondents-authorities not to register a case immediately and had issued directions to the police-authorities to call the person, against whom such a complaint is made, and make efforts to resolve the same, the action of the respondents_ I authorities in calling the petitioner to the police station basing on the complaint made by the petitioner's wife, cannot be said as either illegal, arbitrary or in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. Further, as the respondents have now informed this Court that except for the purpose of counseling into lhe aforesaid complaint lodged by the petitioner's wife, the respondents- authorities are not harassing/ threatening the petitioner to settle the family disputes with the petitioner's wife, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents- authorities is to be placed on record and the respondents are to be directed to conduct enquiry into the aforesaid complaint and take further action, strictly in accordance with law.

9. Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. -J 4 \

10. Conr;eqr ently, miscellaneous petitions, il an.,,, p:rnding shall stand closr:d o, //TRUE COPYII SD/- K.AMMAJI DEPU'ry REGISTRAR l.I sEcflohi b,FFtcER

1. The Principal Sr-.:retary, Home Department, Secretariat, Stzrte of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, r,rt Neredmet, Hyderabad

3. The Assistart Ccmmissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, At LB Nagar, Hyde.abad.

4. The Station lJor-rs,e Officer, Nagole Police Station, Nagole, Hycerabad 5. The Sub lnspeckrr of Police, Nagole Police Station, Nagole, H,,derabad. 6. One CC to SRI IVIEKALA GOUTHAM KUMAR, Advocate. lCpUCl , 7. Two CCs to (iP F:OR HOME, High Court for the State of Telan;ana. [OUT] B. Two CD Cop es 6 o. BSK \V', -/\ ? 1". ot'ii,i, ...s s$J HIGH COURT DATED:0710412.025 GL ORDER WP.No.10304 of 2025 DISPOSING OF'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\