1. Sri Pyarasani Hari Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Smt. P. Priyanka, W/o Pyarasani Hari Prasad, Aged about 25 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad Sri Putta Srinivas, S/o Unknown, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad Sri Putta Pawan, S/o Putta Srinivas, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an app.ropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.3 - Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Uppal, in frequently calling the petitioners and trying to settle the family disputes between the parties, issuing (e' ' '' er:"i-7-/,. j. oral threats, and harassing them at the behest of a farse counter compraint fired by Respondents No.4 and 6, despite the prior registration of FIR No. 399 of 2o2s at chaitanyapuri Porice station on the compraint of petitioner No..1 , as ilegar, arbitrary and viorative of Articres 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of rndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to consequently, direct Respondent No.3 not to harass or threaten the petitioners and to act strictly in accordance with raw, dury issuing prior notice and granting reasonable opportunity and time, if any appearance or cooperation is required. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI NALLAPU MANIDEEP Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I t, l l i i I i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.14441 of2025 ORDER: Heard lcarned counsel for petitioners and leamed Govenrment l)leader lot Homc appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3, and perused the record. With the consent of the counsel appearing fbr the respective parties, the Writ Petition is takcn up fbr hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. I-laving regard to the nature of /is involved and the t.nanrler of disposal of the Writ Petition at the adrnission stage, this Court is of the View that notice to unolficial respondents is not necessary fbr adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the petitioners in briel is that the 3"r respoudent authority is frcquently calting the pctitioncrs and trying to settle the larnily clisputes between the parties by issuing oraI threats and liarassing the petitioners by calting them over phone and also to the Police Station, which action of the respondent authoritics, it is contended is highly ittegal, arbitrary and violative ol Articlc 14, l9 and 2l of the Constitution of India.

4. Pdr contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing \ on behall of respondent Nos.l to 3 submits that initially, the i I I I ! i f, \-ffi '\".eei*#; _..-i,1** \4i" \ , 2 4th respondenr approached the 3.d respondent authority with regard to she being sublccted to harassment by the l.t petitioner herein, who is her husband at the instance of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, and since, the issue co.rplaircd of b1' the 4'r' respondent being a matrimonial r,attcr.. thc 3"i rcspordent authority had made efforls to solve the distr-rutcs betrn een the parties by calling to the police Station.

5. Learncd (lovernrnent pleader further submits that, since effor.ts madc by the 3''1 respondent proved futile, the authorities, basing on thc conrplainl matlc by the 4ll respondent, have registered a case vide Cr.No.l361200-5 under rhc provisions of g5, 316(2) and 351(2) ol.thc Bharatiya Nagalik Suraksha Sanrrita, 2023 and, Sections 3 and 4 or Dowry Irrohibition Act.

6. Learned Government pleader fur.ther submits that. the respondent authorities in order to make an effort to solve the famili, disputes betwce, the pctitioners and 4,h respondent, have called the petitioners to l)olice Station, and since, the efforls madc by tlic authorities have filed, the authorities have now registered a case vide cr"No l3612025 ard that the aur.horities would conduct investigation into the sarne. I --:ffirE ': .// 3 l. 'l-he afbresaid submissions made by the learned Govemment Plcader lor Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3 are taken on fecord

8. Having regard to the submissions made as above, since it is now stated to this Court of the 3'd respondent authority, on the complaint rrade by the 4tl' respondent, having registered a case vide Cr.No.136/2025 dated 02-05-2025, this Courr is of the view rhal the lespondent authorities are to be directed to conduct investigation into the afbresaid crime and take further action strictly in accordance with Iarv.

9. Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ petition is disposed of-. No costs.

10. Conscquently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pcnding shall stand closcd //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.AMMAJI DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, : i I I I 2 J 4

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, S ecretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Uppal, Rachakonda Commissionerate, HYderabad One CC to SRI NALLAPU MANIDEEP, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] M, C) Two CD Copies BSR/BSK HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 I I ORDER WP.No.14441 ot 2025 ,,/. ../..o? 'iiiE SI i': <: o 0 .1,t 27lul ,q n. rc,. r_11, ( ,) n DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @fl r) I