SRI ALAN JOSEpH, REPRESEI,I ilNG SRI J. U. M v. PRASAD

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of l\4andamus declaring the action of the respondent police in calling the petitioner to police station under the guise of the FIR No.1 99 of 201 5 of lV Town PS, Nizamabad District, registered against her husband and harassing her to settle the accounts with the de facto complainant tt/ahipal Reddy, as bad, illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the resporldent potiet not to-alt the petitioner to police station and harass her in any manner. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 48468 OF 201s) 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 r iia.-:-l :,:ira,:r.,: the respondent police not to call the petitioner to police strr cn under the guise of the FIR No 199 of 2015 of rV Town ps, Nizamabad Distric , 'egisterec agarnst her husband and harass her in any manner, pending disposal cf he vrrit petition. t.A NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP .NO : 51212 OF 2015) Betwee n: N Mahipal Reddy S/o. Late' Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, .gecl 65 years, Occ: Business, Rlo. 7-j, Jyotyhi Greens way, Gupanpaly viltaqr, l- N/andar'ano"bislrict Nizamabad ...PETITIONERyPROPOSEt RESpONDENT No.6 ll\ PLEAD PETTTTONER AND 1 State o' Telangana. rep. by its principal Secret.r - Secretariat. Hyderabad. Home Department,

2. The Superintendent of police, Nizamabad, Nizamabad 3. The lnspector of police, Nizamabad. Nizamabad Distri ; 4. The Station House Officer, lV Town police Station, Nrz: 5. Mr. Madhu, Sub-lnspector of police, IV Town police Sta istrict. 'rabad 'on, Nizamabad. ...RESPOND: 'ITS/RESPONDENTS Chetl.a Srilath,a- @ Veena, W/o late Che a Satish, aqed 32 / Rl/o Plot No.203, t\,4anikanta Apartment, Hitech colony]-lVanch: ars, Occ: Housewife, al, Adilabad District ...RESP(l Petition under Section 15 j CpC praying that in the c r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour implead IVr. N. [/lahipal Reddy as Respondent No.6 in Wp.Nc {DENT/PETITIONER rumstances stated in may be pleased to 37682 of 2015. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALAN JOSEpH, REPRESEI,I ilNG SRI J. U. M. V. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRI SRIDHAR BHtJ .,ANAGIRI, AGP FOR HO]V i: Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -- Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI D. MADHAVA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER ,] - i,j: -.: ,iir".i -1F:9 .< /. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.37682 of 2015 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliet "...to issue an appropiate wit, order or direction more especiallg one in the nature of Wft of Mandamus declaing the action of the respondent police in calling the petitioner to police station under the guise of the FIR No. 199 of 2O15 of IV Town PS, Nizamabad Distict, registered against her Lusband and harassing her to settle th-e accounts tuith the de facto complainant Mahipal Reddy, os bad, illegal and arbitrary and consequentlg to direct the respondent police not to caLl tlrc petitioner to police station and harass her in any manner and to pass..."

2. Heard Sri Alan Joseph, learned counsel representing Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner arrd Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos. 1 and 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.37673 of 2015 dated \

14.12.2023, in which F.l.R. No.199 of 2O15, on the hle of Station House Ofhcer, Town-lV Police Station, Nijamabad is called in question which is also subject matter of the nre.s11 Writ Petition. 1

4. It is further submitted that petitioner herein i the wife of the brother of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition. r is revealed that said Writ Petition is dismissed as Infructuous. In iew of the hnal rcporl filed by the police upon conducting of invesrii Ltron of the said crime, the case was ciosed as "Civil in Nature".

5. In vicu, of the above facts and circumstances. he cause in the pre sent Writ Pctition does not survive for adjud. r tlion. However, liberly is granted to the petitioner in W.P.M.p. No.filt l2 of 20i5 who is the de-facto complainan[ and who sought to get I i nself impleaded in the prescnt Writ Petition, to avail a1l the remedie; ts are available in larl. to challenge rhe said final report filed by the olice before the competent Court.

6. Accordingly, the Writ petition is drsmissed .s infructuous Theic shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicatio s, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// ?; ;i.*XHf[tE,BiRRI i \., SECTION OFFICER To 1 One CC to SRI J U M. V. PRASAD, Advocate [OPUI Court for the ;tate 2 Two CCs to GP for Home' High Hyderabad IOU I I 3 One CC to SRI D IUADHAVA RAO' 4. Two CD CoPies MP BS Advocate [OP[Jt) of Telangana at .....4 HIGH COURT DA'l ED:2410912025 I -.-:.t :.;-1: l'.-r< ,.-; ---- --'l'^ r'. -". : 16 fi8 t02t o O ). '"-'r...i-.C:':. ORDER WP.NI: 37682 of 2015 DISMISSING THE \" IRIT PETITION AS II,IFRUCTUOUS WII HOUT COSTS 6-,AP"k