Bhupinder Singh Gill v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of' No
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Hav nq regard to the submissions made as abov(:, since, it is now stated to this (:ourt of the 4th respondent approaching the respondents- authorities anrl lodging a complaint on 16.04.2025 and it is br, ling enquired into by thr: rlspondents-authorities, this Court is…
Judgment
Cause title
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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No. 3 police not to call the Petitioner to the police station frequently without furnishing copy of the complaint of Respondent No. 4 and 5 and further direct the Respondent No. 3 not to interfere in civil disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 and 5- IA NO: 10F 202ai Petition unrierr rsectio.r 151 cpc praying that in the circumsr.ances stated in the affidavit filed rn s,uppe( of the writ petition, the High Cour: may be pleased to direct the Resporrde rrt No. 3 and its officiars not to interfere in the renovation repair, painting and i lstailation of fire safety equipment,s in Rh Giri praza, situated at J.J. Nagar co-rlp-'rative Housing Society Ltd., Under GHrlrc Arwar circre and Mandal, Medchal Ma kajgiri District. IA NO:2O F 2025 Petition uncrer Section 151 cpc praying that in the circu msti; rnces stated in the affidavit filed in r;rrltport of the writ petition, the High Court ma!. be pleased to direct the Resporrdent No.3 not to ca, the petitioner to the porice station frequentry without :lny reason and rhyme without for owing the due p.ocess of raw. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI pOLtCE VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Rerspcndent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Rersp, rndent Nos.4 and 5:__ The Court made the foilowing: ORDER = THE TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. YINOD KUMAR Writ Petitaon N .12098 oJ 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
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.4 and 5 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though no case/crime is registered against the petitioner, the respondents-authorities are calling him to the 3'd respondent - police station and making him sit in the aforesaid police station for long hours without there being any case registered and without furnishing a copy of the complaint alleged to have been lodged by respondent Nos.4 and 5 against the petitioner, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.
Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the 4h respondent 2 herein had approached the 3'd respondent authority ;lnd lodged a complarnt aqainst the petitioner herein on 16.04.2025.
l-eilrnttrJ Government Pleader further submiLs th; rt thr,: respondents- authoritie:; orr receiving the aforesaid complaint had mede E GD entry and for the p:urrnse of conducting preliminary enquiry nto the aforesaid complaint lcccled and to veriry as to the correctness of r:he ( ontents of the complaint ha'rr: called the petitioner to the police station.
Leame cl Government pleader would also submit that the respondents- I tthorities except causing preliminary enqrriry into the contenEi ()f the complaint lodged by the 4h respondert h,:)rein, are not intefferirc in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial responden ls 7 . The, aforesaid submission made by the learned Government pleader for Home,:rpo:aring for respondent Nos.1 to 3 is taken on rer:ord.
Operative part
Hav nq regard to the submissions made as abov(:, since, it is now stated to this (:ourt of the 4th respondent approaching the respondents- authorities anrl lodging a complaint on 16.04.2025 and it is br, ling enquired into by thr: rlspondents-authorities, this Court is of tre riew that the respondenl:s-a uthorities are to be directed to conduct inve,;tigation into the aforr:si:ricl (:omplaint lodged by the 4h respondent and on the said enquiry, if thtr authorities are of the view that any cognizable offence 3 having been committed, the authorities are directed to take further action in the matter strictly in accordance with law' 9 Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of' No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall /TTRUE COPY/I SD,. L. VUAYA LN(MI AS ISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER State of Next to care lkaigiri District' na, at stand closed. To,
2. 3 4 5. 6 TJ LS HIGH COUFIT DATED:2210t412025 ORDER WP.No.12098 r>f 2025 I I i 1 I |: .." .,-1t (.*' c c J I o \r \ 21 luN t06 { \ d fCft-^ r DISPOSING ,OI:THE WRIT pETtTtON WTHOUT COSTS f+ _(L\@ -r>--\'
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of' No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.