The High Court · 2025

G. Manmadhakumar, S/o not known to the petitioners, aged major, Occ S.l.of police, O/o Haythnager Police station, Cyberbad, Ranga Reddy District. G. Srinivas S/o not known to the petitioners, aged major, Occ police constable, O/o Hayathnager Police station, Cyberbad- Ranga Reddy District. Samreddy Krishna Reddy S/o Late Narayan Reddy. aged_ 62 years, Occ Agricultuie, Ri,/o.Thorrur (V), Hayathnager (M), Ranga Reddy District. Samreddy Parameshwar S/o Samreddy Krishna Reddy, age! 35 years. Occ Agriculture, Rl/o Thorrur (V), Hayathnager (M), Ranga Reddy District. lO.Samreddy Narsimha Reddy, do Late Narayan Re{dy, Ag9! 58 years, occ agriculturi-', r/o Thorrur (V), Hayathnager (M), Ranga Reddy Diskict. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia ,raying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the t'l ;h Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more p3 licularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the actions of the respond: rts No.5 and 6 in registering the FlRs No.1010/2015 and 101 112015 of PS Hali tnagar, Cyberabad commissionrate as illegal, unjust and unconstitutional, and voili tive of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 5th and 6th responJ )nts not to interfere .with the civil dispute between the petitioners and responde r ts No.B to 10 and further direct the 2nd respondent to enquire in to the matter ar I to take necessary action against the respondents No.5 to 7 and to file the repo I before this Hon'ble Court. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(wPMP. NO: s3153 OF 2015) Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the cirt rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma 7 be pleased to direct the 5th and 6th respondents not to interfere with the civil r ispute between the petitioners and respondents No.8 to 10 and further direct tlr, 2nd respondent to enquire in to the matter and to take necessary action agz i rst the respondents No.S to 7 and to file the report before this Hon'ble court p€ r Cing disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. AMARENDER REDDY (N( T PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRI SRIDHAR BHl, /ANAG|R|, AGP FC) I HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 10: - The Court made the following: ORDER ,/ ,/,, / THE HOI{OT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE VAXITI RAUAIIRISENA R.EDDY WRIT PETITION No.41178 of2Ol5 ORDER: Heard Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 and perused the material available on record. However, ttrere is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.

2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos'S and 6 in registering the FIR No.lOlO/2O15 and FIR No. 1011/2O15 of Police Station, Hayatnagar' Cyberabad Commissionerate as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent Nos-5 and 6 not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos'8 to lO and further direct the respondent No.2 to enquire into the matter and to take necessary action against respondent Nos'S to 7 and to file a report before this Court.

3. Respondent No.4 filed counter affrdavit, inter alia, denying all theallegationsleveledbythepetitionersinthewritaflidavit.The respondent No.4 also specihcally stated that, basing on the complaint made by petitioner No.3 against the unofficial respondents, an FIR No. lOlO/2Of 5 was registered on tJle a,t _tt Hayathnagar Police \ 2 Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, on O2.lL.2Ol!; It is further stated that respondent No. lO also filed a counter ce;e against the peLitioners on the same day in the same aforesaid p,,l station. At ". paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the counter afhdavit, it is specifically mentioned by respondent No.4 that the investigatior into both the cases was already conducted by the police auth I .ities and FIR No. 1010 of 2015 u,as closed as "civil in nature', whe- as u,ith regard to FIR No. lO11 of 2O15, the police have laid down ctrzr ge sheet before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at HaviL hnagar, Ranga Reddy Dislrict, r,r,hich is numbercd as C.C.No. 1462 ot ]O15 and that it had ended in acquittal uide judgment dated 22.O,2: 017. It is also specifically stated in the counter affidavit of respondt:; t No.4 that the police authorities ncver interfered in the civit I sputes of the petitioners, except following the due process of law dr ring the course of investigation conducted in the said crimes.

4. In the light of the said development, this Courr s of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner no long: survives for adjudication.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissel as infructuous. However, it is open to the petitioner, if so adviserl to pursue any ( 3 other remedy available in law questioning the frnal report. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. M.J AWAHAR REDDY ASSIST ANT REGIS /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 One CC to SRI D AMARENDER REDDY' Advo Two CCs to GP for Home' High Court for the Hyderabad lOUTl IOPUC] rState of Telangana at

3. Two CD CoPies MP TKS I I I t I I I l HIGH COURT DAT :D:2610912025 z---.-__:_ a:'d{1aES14p, i.. 1\w' . ..: -r.) ) --) () '/ .... * 6 r:8 2i l z 6) * 1) PATi:'Yl( ORDER WP.N<r 41178 of 2O1S DISMISSING THE V PETITION AS I{FRUCTUOUS WI''HOUT COSTS 'RIT K< afz-/ze ,