Avirendla Danial v. The State of Telangana

Rachakonda Srinivas Rao, S/o Venkataramaiah, Occ- Agriculture, Fl/o Neeraducherla Village and lvlandal, Suryapet District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Police in interfering with personal life and liberty of the Petitioner and civil disputes pending between the respondents 6 to 9 by calling him to the Police Station and confining him and threatening him to settle the disputes by handing over land to the respondents 6 to 9 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents Police not interfere with life and liberty of the Petitioner and with the civil disputes pending between the Petitioner and others and respondents 6 to 9 and not to harass him by calling to the Police Station or in any manner. lA 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 Police not interfere with civil disputes and not to call the Petitioner to the Police Station and harass him. Counsel for the Pr:titioner: SRI G. SUNDARESAN Counsel for the Rr:spondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 9:-- The Court made the following: ORDER I ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petitio n No.21857 of 2O 25 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the pafties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of /s involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 9 is not necessary for adjudication oF the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, the 5th respondent is interfering with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner by involving himself in a civil dispute existing behveen the petitioner and the unofficial respondents herein and are coercing him to settle the aforesaid dispute in favour of the unofficial respondents, which action of the respondents- authorities it is contended as illegal, arbitrary and without authority/ sanction of law, with a consequential direction to restrain the respondents From interfering in the civil dispute.

4. Per contra, learned Government pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5, while denying the writ averments, would 1( 2 submit that the 9th respondent herein had approached the 5th respondent authority and lodged a complaint/representation dt.24.06.2025 claiming that the petitioner herein and 4 others have trespassed into his land on

12.06.2025 and started ploughing his larrd.

5. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the 5th respondent authority, on receiving the aforesaid complaint, had made a GD entry and after causing preliminary enquiry, registered a case, vide Crime No.11B of 2025 dt.24.06.2025, wherein the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.1.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the respondents- authorities, on registering the aforesaid crime, undertook investigation thereinto and examined LWs.1 to 5, and thereafter, issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner.

7. Learned Government Pleader would also submit that the respondents-authorities by following the due process have completed investigation into the aforesaid crime and filed a charge sheet on t5.07.2025 before Principal IFCM, Miryalaguda and CC number is awaited.

8. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, the respondents-authorities have already conducted investigation into Crime No.11B of 2025 registered against the petitioner and others and having 3 filed a charge sheet, the respondents-authorities are not interfering in any civil dispute, which is the subject matter of suit, v/de O.S.No.4l9 of 2022

9. The aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 is taken on record

10. Having regard to the submissions made as above, and taking note of the fact that a case, videCrime No.118 of 2025 is registered against the petitioner on the file of the 5th respondent police station and the respondents-authorities, on conducting investigation thereinto, having filed a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed not to interfere in the civil dispute that may exist between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents herein, except in accordance with law.

11. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/-B. REKHA RAN1 ,TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGIS ECTION OFFICER To, I w

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, The State ofTelangana, Hyderabad

2. The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, NSP Campus, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District' 4, Circle lnspector of Police, Miryalguda Rural, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District' 5. The Station House Officer, Madgulapally Police Station, Nalgonda District' 6. One CC to Sri G. Sundaresan, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI

8. Two CD Copies --J HIGH COURT DATED:281A712025 ORDER WP.No.21857 of 2025 /.- (; t,\ 2 B O[,I 206 C).) .al i) S,,^-rC\1(\' 7 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0 \0