High Court · 2025

7. Srinivas, S/o Not Known fum:ig;:*:?i;;:|[fi #iffii;,:Ei:,a??,i::effi ::,::: .....RESPONDENTS petition Under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewi; "-",. ". ,;":;"" "::"lewith' the Hish court mav be preased to issue *rn Ma ndam us by oec ar ns th:',"": JTT: [T;ff];il : ffi:#;:::iJ peacefur rife and riberty of the petitioner and arso inte into the civir disputes between the petitioner husband and Responden, |,Jn"''nn o.6 and 7 and calling the Petitioner to the porice station and threatening to pay the amount to the Respondent No. 6 and 7 without having any jurisdiction is iflegar and arbitrary and violation of Articres 14, 1s and 21 of the constitution of India and arso vioration of Principles of Naturar Justice and consequenfly to direct the Respondent No. . 5 not to interfere into the peacefur rife and riberty of the petitioner and her husband also not to interfere into the civir disputes between the petitioner and Respondent No. 6 and 7. l.A.NO:1 O F 2025 Petition Under section 1s'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thi: petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 5 ngt to interfere into the peacefur rife and riberty of the Petitioner and her husband arso not to interfere into the civir disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 6 and 7, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to S : Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondeht Nos.6 &7 : __ The Court at the stage of admission made the foltowing ORDER / THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17389 OF 2025 ORDER: . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner o[ disposal of the Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofhcial respondent Nos.6 and 7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 5G respondent is interfering into the peaceful lifc and liberty of the petitioner and also involving in civil dispute existing between the petitioner's husband and the unofficial respondent herein which action of the respondents, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary, without jurisdiction, authority and sanction ol the law.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader lor Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 while denying the 2 writ averments would submit that three persons by namc Jyothi, Venkatesh and M. Srinivas (7ft respondent herein) hacl approachecl the sfi rcspondent authority and todgcd a complianl zrgainst the peti[ioner's husband on 2t .O3.2025; thar upon the said complaint being lodged, the authorities have made a G.D. entry and took up preliminary enquiry to verify as to the correctness or otherwise of the contents of the complaint; and that dtrring the enquiry since the contents of thc complaint disclosed t}-re dispute to.be civil dispute, the authorities have closed the complaint as 'ciuil in naturd on 27.03.2025 ztnd issued intin-ration to the complainants through PMS.

5. Learn ed Government Pleader further submil s that since the authorities have already closed the aforesaid complaint lodged by thc 7th respondent herein along with trvo others on

27.O3.2025. there is no necessit5r for the authorities to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner or involve themselves in the civil dispute .

6. The aforesaid submission made by t he learncd Governmenl. Pleader for Home is taken on record

7. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking note of the fact that as of date there is no complaint against thc petitioner's E husband nor any crime is registered against him and that the respondent authorities having closed the complaint given by the 7d, respondent and two others after causing preliminary enquiry on 27.03.2025, this Court is of the view that thc responden[ authorities are to be directed not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner. Further, in the event of any complaint being lodged against the petitioner or her husband, the respondent authorities are directed to take action strictly in accordance with iaw.

8. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. NAGAMANI STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER at, Secretariat Buildings'

1. The PrinciPa I Secretary, Home DePartment, Secre State of Telang ana at Hyderabad The Director Ge neral of Police, Telang ana State, HYderabad The Commissioner The Assistant Com Commissionerate. 2 J 4 5. The Station House Officer, Gudimalkapur Police Station, HYderabad of Police, HYderaba d Commissionerate missioner of Police, Kulsumpura Division, HYderabad Commissionerate. ffi'Ci;'i;'cF'Fbn Horvre, High court for the state of relansana at Hvderabad. [OUTI iji,""-bt t" s nr-nApot- u B HAS KAR, Ad vocate [o P u c] Two CD CoPies To t) 7 o SA PVL HIGH COURT DATED:2410612025 ./ ',, C, )+ I L1,( \ (. -':: .'....1 j+' f OR TH c 0t tag ?og ' ORDER WP.No.17389 of 2025 J'. 1t Cqrt)a aj "l' DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. \\ t' . It I