The High Court · 2025

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 or order or orders more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondents no. 2 to 5 in pressurizing and interfering with life and liberty of the petitioner besides interfering in the disputes between the petitioner and the 6th respondent which is civil in nature, as wholly illegal unjust and violative of Articles 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the official respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's life and liberty or call the petitioner to their respective police stations for any settlement with the respondent No.6. II 7 lA NO: 1 OF 2o2s Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circu.nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cour.r. may be preased Hanumakonda to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to call th€ petitioner to their respective police stations or interfere/press u rize the petitic ner to set e the monitory issue with the 6th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt SRIKANTH HARTHARAN Counsel for the Respondents No.1toS : Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.2O592 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Plea(er for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and with their consent, the Writ petition is taken up for hearing a]ld disposal at admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition a,,d the nature of lls i.voived, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessarlr for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are interfering in thc civil dispute existing between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent herein, and coercing the petitioner to settle the said dispute in favour of the unofhcial respondent No.6, thereby interfering with the life and iiberty of the petitioner, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegai and arbitrary. 2

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader f lr Home appearmg for official respondents while denying the u'ril averments would submit that the 6th respondent herein had initiiilllr approached the respondents-authorities on 25.O9 -2024 and l:dged a complaint against the petitioner herein, upon which tL c authorities have made a GD entry and after causing preliminer-r enquiry, which revealed the dispute between the petitiorLer and unofficial respondent No.6 to be a civii dispute, have closed the aforesaid complaint on 06.12.2024 as "civil in nature".

5. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the 6,h respondent hacl once-again approached tht: 2'd respondent on

24.06.2025 and lodged a complaint; that the 2"d respondent on receiving the aforesaid complaint had forwarded tire same to the

3.d respondent to enquire and submit a repo:t; and that the 3'd respondent on receiving the aforesaid complant as forwarded by the 2"a respondent, after causing prelimirrary enquiry, had submitted a report on 14.O7.2025, whereby it is stated that since, the contents of the complaint dt.24.06.2o25 to be same as the contents of the complaint dt.24.O9.2024' which after conducting enquiry, having been closed as "civil in nra'ture", the present 3 complaint, dt.24.O6.2O25 was also closed as "civii in nature" on

24.O7.2025.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the respondents-authorities except causing preliminary enquiry into the aJoresaid complaints lodged by the 6th respondent herein, are not interfering in the civil disputes that may exist between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent herein or coercing the petitioner to settle the said dispute in favour of the 6th respondent, interfering with the life and liberty of the peritioner, S \ \ claimed. t I 7 The a-foresaid submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Home is taken on record.

8. Having regard to the submissions made as above and taking note of the fact that the 6th respondent having approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a complaint/ representation, lirstly on 25.09.2024 and thereafter on

24.06.2025, arld both th6 complaints having been closed as ,'civil in nature" on 06.12.2024 and 14.07.2025, respectively, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed 4 not to interfere \{rith the life and liberty of the petitioner, except in -i accordalce with 1au,

9. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Pe:ition is disposed of. No order as to costs

10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha1l stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.PRATHIMA oEPUTY RE9TSTRAR i SECTI D N OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, (Home), Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, []anmakonda. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hanmakonda The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kazipet. The Station House Officer, PS, I/adikonda, Hanmakonda. One CC to SRI SRIKANTH HARIHARAN, Advocate. [Ol)UC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State ol Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies. 2 J 4 5 7 o BSK LS HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 c =_ir-- o .-..\ - c;C.\ !i ) o L) 0 2 5E P zIE t o .Qsp 4lct ---t' I'r\tt ORDER WP.No.20592 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ ?d B{