Nimmala @ Karnati Pushpalatha v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No-6 in interfering into the Civil disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.7 to 8 during the pendency of Partition Suit vide O.S No. 215 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court at Nakrekal and calling the Petitioner to the Police Station and threatening to settle the dispute between the Respondent No.7 to 9 and to handover the share of the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 7 to I is highly illegal, arbitrary. unconstitutional and violatron of Articles 14, '15 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violation of the Frinciples of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No- 6 not to interfere into the Petitror er's peaceful life and liberty and not to interfere into the civil disputes, while the rendency of Pa(ition Suit vide O.S No. 215 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judr; Court at Nakrekal. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the c r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m a )umstances stated in ,be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 6 not to interfere into the Petitioner's p r aceful life and liberty and not to interfere into the civil dispuies, while the p€ndenr;' O.S. No. 215 o'f 2021 on the tile of Junior Civil Judge Court of Partition Suit vide at Nakrekal, pending d isposal of Wrrt Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No. 'l to 6: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 to 9: --- The Court made the following: ORDER ,). // /t' ,|/ .,,/ ,// ,.,/ I ?HE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER: W.P. No.25391 of 2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the threshold.

2. Questioning the action of the respondent No.6, Station House Ofhcer, Shaligowraram Police Station, in interfering into the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents No.7 to 9 during the pendency of partition suit in O.S. No.215 of 2O2l on the f-rle of the Junior Civil Judge Court at Nakrekai and calling the petitioner to the Police Station and threatening to settle the dispute between the respondents No.7 to 9 and to hadover the share of the petitioncr to the respondents No.7 to 9, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the respondents No.7 and 8, sister and brother-in_law, respectively, are close relatives and have succeeded [he ancestral agricultural property. Since there was a civil dispute betn een the petitioner and the respondents No.7 and g filed partition suit in O.S. No.215 of 2O2l and the same is pending before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Nakreka_I. While so, the responclents No.7 to 9 influenced the respondent No.6 for u,hich the respondent No.6 has been interfering into civil disputes by calling the petitioner to the Police*ptation and threatening to setLle the civil dispute with the l. 2 respondents No.7 to 9- Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petltlon

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Gcr for Homc placed a copy of the initructions da 3rnment Pleader '.ed 25.O8.2025, based on which it is submitted that the responclen t ; No.7 to t have not approached the respondent No.6 and not givr: r any complaint against the petitioner till date. Therefore, the quest < n of interfcrencc by thc respondent No.6 in civil dispute does not a;.. ;e. [t is further submitted that the respondent No.6 did not call the p :titioncr and did not lhrcaten the petitioner to settle the dispute ,,r.i .h thc unoflicial respondcr-rts. Further, though the petitioner allcgcr that she made represenLations to the respondents No.3 to 5 requesti the respondent No.6 not to interfere into th,r the petitioner did not tile a copy of the alleged repr with the writ pctition, which shows the said alk:1 Lg them to direct civil clisputes, )sentatiorl zrlong ation has been invented for the sake of the present writ petition.

5. In that view of the matter, recording the subrr ssions rnade by the learned Assistant Government pleader that the p titioner was nol called [o the Police Station and not interfering vuith _. .e civil disputes, this ..r.rit petition is dismissed as frivolous ald r:1 :void of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.. /,,l / I I i I 3 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, 1 9ne CC to SRt RAPOLU BHASKAR. Advocate rop ? f*o CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court roi the.5t, 3 Two CD Copies MMT GJP Pnn( SD/.G. JYOTHI S TANT REGIST ECTION OFFICER Telangana. [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 ORDER WP.No.25391 of 2025 'tA j.. '.1-lE ( 1 7 ,l 2[r?rr v C) * * - C F)r DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @o*. sl ,l >e