1. Devarakonda Gnaneshwar v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in interfering with the possession of the property of H.No.'12-1-28(New) (Old No. 12133 and 34) admeasuring 122. 74 Sq. yds consisting of G (plus) 3 Floors situated at SVN Road, Warangal and calling the petitioners to the Police Station, Matwada and making them to sit in the Police Station till evening and also visiting the shop of the petitioners and threatening them to settle the dispute between the petitioner and the 5th Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and violation Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of fundamental rights and consequently direct respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of H.No.12-1 -28(New) (Old No. 12133 and 34) admeasuring 122.74 Sq. yds consisting of G (plus) 3 Floors situated at SVN Road, Warangal of the petitioner, which is purely civil in nature. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property of the petitioners as well as not to call the petitioners to the police station and make them to sit hours together by leaving their business pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SHASHANK GARIGE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : - The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER /; 7 {' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.16395 of 2O25 9_B!sB Hcard learned counsel for the peritioners, learned Government Plcader for Home appearing for rcspondent Nos.I to 4, and q,ith the c(lnscnt o[ the counscl appearinq ftrr thc parties, the Writ Petition is r:rkcn up Ior ht:.rring and disposal ar;rdutission stagc.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the u,rit petiLion and th€r naturc of li-s involved, this Court is of thc vier.r, thar notice to unoflicial rcspondcnt No.S is not necessary for adjudication of the prc scfrt Writ Petition .

3. The casc of the petiLroners, in brief, is Lhat they had entered into an agrcement r,r'ith Lhe rrnoflicral rr:spondt:r'rt No.5 hereiu to sell thcir housc prollcrllr in Lhc yt:ar 2(12 1. lhc sai(l :lgr(jcmgnt ir.as re,,,okcd subsequently on 22.71.2021 , and also rcturned the advancc amollnt paid by the 5d rcspondenr under a rcceipt issued, d1.11.O2.2O22; that ir-r spitc of the agreemcnt- of sale having been cancelled and the advance amounl being l'eturncd to the Sth respondcnt, the said respondent is sceking to 1ay a claim over Lhe peLitioners' house property, with the help of respondent N<)s.2 to 4; that the rcspondcr-rt Nos.2 Lo 4 arc inrerl'ering w.ith the petiLioners' peacclul possession over l-hc irousc propcj-L_y; and thal the respondents-au thorities in order to suppon ihe 5,r, responclent herein l' : ',i 2 are cailing thLr pctitioners to the police station reqularll,. and harassing them, therebr n'rtcrfering uitl.r thcir liie and libertv.

4. Per r:onlrct. Icarncd Clovcrnmcn( Pleadcr for []omc appc'aring on bchall oi rr-'spo rrrk'r'r t s No. I to 4 submits that the 5rr, rcsponclcnt had approachcd thc 3. responclen t-au thori t}, and lodged a complaint on Oa.O6.2O2r :laiming of ccrtain disputes having arisen in relation to an agrecmenL ol sale and [he amount paid thereunder to Lhe petitioners herein.

5. Lcarnercl (iovernrnenl l)leader furhtcr subrnits that the respondcnts- .ruttrorit ics on receiving the aforesaid complaint from thc 5th respondcnt hcrcin have initiatcd cnquiry and in the process of enquirl, to vr:riir.irs to tl-rc corrcctncss or othenvise of the contents of the complaint, ira,.,c t:alicd thc peLitioners to thr: police stalion.

6. Learned (lovcrnment Pleader further submits that the responden[s- arrthorities except calling the petitioners for the purpose of enquiry are not intcrlering in the civil <lisputes or rvith the lifc and liberty of the pr:titioners, and LIIaL Lhc authoritics arc taking action on the complerint lodgecl br- thc 5,h rcspondent herein, in accordance with lau,. 7 . I have taken r-rote ol Lhe respcctivc submissions mzrdc

8. 'lhoug)-t the pctitioners claim of having cntered into an agreemcnt o1' salc '"r",ith the 5th respondent herein in respect of their r 3 house propcrtv and the said agreemcnt having been revoked, ald the adr,:nce amount received thereunder having been returned to the urrolficial rcspondent herein undcr a receipt, dt.14.O2.2022, since, it is nog. stated bcfore this Court of the 5*, respondenI having approachcd thc 3.d respondent-au thority and having lodged a complaint on 08.06.2025; that the albresaid complaint is bcing enqurrcd into, for which purpose, the petilioncrs having been called by the respondents-authorities; and that the petitioners neither har,'ing appcared belore the authorities nor furnished information in conncction u,itl-r the complai4t lodged lor the respondents to conduct prcliminan enquirl'. this Court is o[ thc vir]u, thal if the respondents ar-lthoritjcs tind thar the petitioners are not cooperattng with the enclr-riry bl,furnishing thc information, thc authorities cannot keep the cornpl:rint opcn without taking further action thereon by registering a crime, so as Lo call the petitioners in the name of enquiry to the police station, thercbv interfering with their life arrd liberty.

9. tf only the petitioners did not respond to the czrlls of the rcspondents authorities, the authorities ought to have taken further acl ion in accordancc with lau,, if thc conre nts of rhe complaint disclose comrnission of cognizable ofiencc instead of kccping thc corr.rplaint opcn.

10. The merc [act rhat the lar,r. provides for 14 days time to the rcspondcnts-au thorities to conduct enquiry, in the considered vie,,r, of \\ \i.-.-.-! 4 this Court, cannol llc r:oniitrcrl trs pcrmrtting thc attthoritics noL Lo act upon thc cornplaint evotr i1 1.ht' pcrson against rt'hom thc said complaint is rnade has no( responded either by appearing belore thc authorities or furnishing thc irrfonna(ion. 1 1. The provision of 1 4 clavs timc provided undcr BNSS is for the purpose of authoritics collecting.rck:vant evidcnce and information in order to take rrction on t hc complaint lodged, but that by itself would not result ir-r conlcr-rinq :r ll()\\'('r o11 thc authoritr to keep [he complaint opet'r lor the s:ricl pt:r-iod u'ithout tzrking an1' action thercon till the last momenL and rcgistering an FIR/Crime only on thc last day, even though thc contcnts o[ thc complaint disciosc commission of a cognizabk: offence.

72. Such coursc o[ :rction rcsortcd to by tilc rcspondenLs- authorities u orLld onh, leacl to givirtg an imprcssiot't that Lhe authorities u'anL Lo takc utrduc advantagc of thc time period mentioned uncler BNSS Lo it't"'olvc themsclvcs in settliLrg the disputes that are being complained o1. br: it a law & order situation or a civil dispute.

13. Since, in the lacts ol the present casc, the contents of the complaint itself indicat.t' thc lrnoflicial rcsponclet-rt having made reference to an allcgetl aqreem.'nt ol sale, the re spondcnts-authorities ought to have considered r'r'hr:lher such a dispute is a civil disputc or ( 5 not, warranting their involvement at the first instance, rather lharl keeping thc complaint pcnding since 08.06.2025 and calling the petitioners to the police station in the name of enquiry.

14. As it is noL shown to this Court that the respondents- authorities having considered Lhe contents of the complaint as disclosing commission of a cognizable offence or not, for thcm to conducL [urther-enquirl of thc rnatter. rcsulting in rcgistcring of FIR, this Court is ol the vie$' that the action of the respondents-au thorities in calling the p(jtitioners consLanl-1_\, to rhe police station in the name of cnquiry inro the complairit lodgecl b1, the unofhcial respondent, dt.08.06.2025, clearll' .amounts to the rcspondents-au thorities interfering rvith the life and liberty of the petitioners, without any propcr cau sc. I5. [n vicq' of thc abovc. this Court is of the view that the rcspondcn ts-alr thori tics arc to bc: dirccted to conduct enquiry into the complaint lodged by thr: unc,fficial rcsp()ndent No.5 hercin, r.r,ithout calling the pctitioners to thc policc station. If in the course of preliminary enquiry, the authorities come to a conclusion of the said complaint lodged disclosing commission of a cognrzable offence, they ought to take steps by registering FIll agalnst the petitioners. Further, if thc cnquiry docs not disclosc commisslon of any cognizable offcncc, thc authoritics ar-c required to close the aJoresaid complaint by issuing necessary inLirnation to thc complainant of the action 6 taken on the r:omplair-rL lodgccl. [or him to avail frtrthur remedies open to him law.

16. Subjecl lo thc abo\'o ()l)s('r-\'alrolt irlrd rlircclirtrr. t:tc Writ Pctrtion is disposcd of. No orclcr as 1() ('r)sls.

17. Consequcntly, mrscelliu.rcous p('titi()lts, iI anr'. pcndir-rg shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR secffiorrrcen To at Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana 2. The Asst. commissioner'of Police, office of the warangal commissionerate, S. fh" Cir"l" inspectoi of policl, Matwada police Station, Warangal District. +. rn" Sru_ lnspector of police, Matwada police station, Warangal District. S. fwo CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Near Public Garden, Warangal Hyderabad. [OUT] o. o'ne cc to sRl SHASHANK GARIGE, Advocate IoPUC] 7. Two CD Copies SA PVL ry- HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 ORDER WP.No.16395 of 2025 __-'*:-.\- .:i:- \i:'-'.i. ,.-1 ({ 0[ AUE 206 \ DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. /