P.Harinath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitulion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more fully one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in harassing the petitioner herein by calling him to the Police Station repeatedly with the connivance of the 3rd respondent herein for recovery of audit shortage amount of Rs. 2,28,7531-(Rupees two lakhs twenty eight thousand seven hundred and fifty three only) as biased, without jurisdiction, illegal and capricious and ,consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein not to call the petitioner to the Police Station at the instant of the 3rd respondent herein for recovery of the aforesaid amount hereinafter, which is falls under civrl d i:;pute, in the ends of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 21227 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th,l circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor. rt may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein not to take any coercl ve steps against the petitioner herein at the instance of the 3rd respondent hr:,r ein, pending disposal of the above WP No. of 2016. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GADE VENKATESWARA RAO (NoNE APPEARED) Counsel for the Respondent No.'l & 2: SRI R.LAXMIKANTt{ REDDY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.17254 OF 2016 ORDER: This W'rit Petition is filcd under Article 226 of Constitulion of India sceking the following relief/s:- ". . . to issue a Writ, order or dfuecuon more fully one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus decladng the action of thc 2"d respondent herein in harassing the peutioncr hcrcin by calling him to the Police Station repeatcdly with the connivance of the 3'd tespondent hcrcin fot rcco\.ery of audit shortasc amount of Rs. 2,28,753/-(RuPees t\r'o lakhs twenq'eight thousand seven hundrcd and fiftv three onl1) as biascd, u,rthout jurisdiction, illcgal atid capricious and consequently dircct the 2"d respondcnt hcrcin not to call the pctitroner to the Police Station at the instant of the 3'd tcspondent herein fot rccovery of the aforcsaid amount heteina[ter, which is [al]s under civil disputc, in the ends of justice and pass such othet otdet or otders."

2. None appeared on behaif of the petitioner.

3. I have l.rcard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appeadng for respondent Nos.1 and,2.

4. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Flome submitted that the respondent police did flot, at any point, interfere with or harass the petitioner in relation to the recovery of the alleged audit shortage amouflt. He further contended that the 2 &i petition merclv makcs a bald assertion without [urnishing any specific particulars or supporting details. Accordinr311,, it was urged that the relicf sought ir.r the petition is devoid of rrcr-it and is liable to be dismissecl

5. I have perused thc materials on record.

6. The petitioner, in his affidavit, stared thar ,tr 26.05.201.6,he rcccived a phorre call from respondent No.2 sunrmoning him to appear at the policc station on 27.05.2016. In r:ompliance, rhe petitioner appeared before respondent No.2, rvlrc, rhen inforrned him of the alleged due amounr as re flected in tl L. recor.ery letter datcd 16.02.2016. The pcririorrcr rhereupon rc!url:.rcd respondenr No.2 to convev to the complainant/respondent |.1.i.3 that the said amount be adjusted from his Provident Fund rlucs, torvards his liabilirr, of 509'6, contending that there was no rrcqligence on his part as he had not becn preserrt in the shop at tle relevant time. Howevet, on 28.05.2016, respondcnt No.2 ag;ain called the petitioner, insisted that he discharge the entire allr:q 3d amount, and allegedly threatcned hirn with dire cor-rsequencer:;. lr was firrther I 3 asserted that respondent No.2 warned that, should the balance not be paid, false criminal cases would be foisted against the petitioner, resuking in his incarceration. 'Ihese assertions indicatc that rcspondent No.2 cngaged in acts amounting to-parricipation in thc \i recovery of the shortage amount, a rr-.atter which is clearly outside the scope of his lawful responsibil,itics and duties.

7. Acct>rdinglv, it is lound appropdate to direct the respondent No.2, not to intcrfere in what is essentially a civil dispute, nor hc shall render any assistance in the recovery of the alleged shortagc amounts. Furthcrmore, the involvement of respondent No.2 in a civil dispute, under the guise of pending criminai proccedings, would Iikcwisc lall outside the ambit of his official duties. 'I'herefore, respondcnt No.2 is hereby restrained from undertaking any acrivity that ',vould invoh.e hirrr in the recovery o[ amounts pertairung to a civil dispute. If, however, the presence of the pedrioner is genuinely required for the purposes of investigation in any lawful proceedings, such appearance shall only be securcd through the issuance of a written notice speci$ting the Purpose, date, and rirne schcdule in clear and specific terrns. 4

8. \X,ith the abovc dilection, this u,rit petition i, allou,'ed. -fhcre shall bc no ordcl as to costs. Nlisccllancous Pctitions, pending if 2n1,, shall :rtancl closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. AlH As\ .s. ;Ib GOWRI SHANKAR TANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER ( The Principal Secretary, Home Department, T.S\ Sr:cretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Station House Officer, Chandanagar Polict: Station, Cyberabad, Seriligampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderab,ad, T.S. i One CC to SRI GADE VENKATESWARA RAO, Advor;i'te [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the liitate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 5 BSR LS HIGH COURT DATED: 1310812025 z g sFl, ll025 \...- I IO! -). /, .: - ,',/ ,,// ORDER WP.No.17254 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1 \