Sri. Datla Rama Krishna Varma v. 1. The S_tate of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances gtated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus questioning the action of respondents partrcularly the Respondents No.'s. 2 to 4, in interfering with the personal Iife and liberty of the petitioner herern by calling and harassing in collusion with the unofficial respondents by forcefully usrng undue influence had made a written agreement daled. 1210712025 for the recovery of the money, which is highly illegal, abuse of power, arbitrary and ---'-'---'- against the princ ples of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14,21 and 22 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents no. 2 to 4 not to interfere with tre personal life and liberty of the petitioner herein. l.A.NO:1 OF 202!i Petition Urrder Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Resporrdents Nos. 2 to 4 not to interfere with the petitioner personal life and liberty by ca ling and harassing the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the above writ petitio-r. Counsel for the l)etitioner : M/s SNEHA BACHANABOINA Counsel for the llespondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the flespondent Nos.5 & 6 : -- The Court made the following ORDER -/ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER: lV.P. No.26OE9 of 2o25 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the threshold.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in interfering with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner by calling and harassing in collusion with the unofficial respondents and by forcefully using undue influence had made a written agreement dated 12.O7.2025 for recovery of the money. The writ petitioncr also seeks consequential prayer to direct the respondents No.2 to 4 not to interfe re lr,ith the personal life and liberty of the petitioner.

3. The learned corrnsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and one Mr. Ravindra Reddy, who is the proprietor of the Shree Tej Industries situated at Jeedimetal, are friends,l}om 15 years. The petitioner had accornpanied the said Ravindra Reddy to Aurangabad in the year 2024 for some contract work ar-rd the said Ravindra Reddy bought respondent No.S to invest in the project, which is worth of Rs.25,00,O00 l- and out of the said amount, the respondent No.S had deposited an amount of Rs.8,5O,000,/- into the account of the said Ravindra Reddy. Due to lack of investment, the said project was stopped and in the mean time, unlortunately, the said Ravindra Reddy passed away in the month of April, 2025. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 has started calling the petitioncr, 2 only becauso he was a friend of late Ravindra Reddy, to pay the amount, whi:h he has given to late Ravindra Reddy. The respondent No.6 had ak;o started asking the money from the petitioner stating that the res[,ondent No.6 had given money to the respondent No.5 to invest in thr: Project of the Late Ravindra Reddy Thereafter, the respondent IIo.4 has called the petitioner to come to rhe Police Station by stating that there is a complaint lodged against hLm. The petitioner went to the Police Station and there they have made a written agreement dated 12.07.2O25 according to the terms of respondents No.S and 6 and forcefully by using unduc influe nce, made the petitioner to sign on the agreement and thereafter, the respondents No.2 to 4 ar: calling and harassing the petitioner lbr the recovery of the money to lr.hich the petitioner is no way concerned to the subject matter. Qrrestioning the action of the responrients No.2 to 4, the petitione : filed the present writ petition. I

4. On tht: other hand, the learned Assistant Gor,ernment Pleader for Home, has placed a copy of the instructions dated O9.O9.2O25, wherein it is submitted that the respondent No.S has given a complaint i ated 28.O6 .2025 and based on the said complaint, the respondent No.4 has made GD entry on 28.06.2025 and caused enquiry wherein it is revealed that one Mr. Ravi R:ddy has made to believe the complainant to invest in the business of the petitioner so that the ccmplainant would derive huge prc,fits. On that, the complainant paid amounts to the petitioner and-Ravi Reddy on , '\ t/ 3 different dates totally for Ten lakhs. Later the complainant came to know that the said Ravi Reddy died. Since the dispute pertains to financial transactions, which is purely civil in nature, as such, the respondent No.4 informed the complainant and the petitioner that the Police cannot interfere into civil disputes and they may settle the said dispute before the concerned Civil Court. After completion of enquiry, the complaint given by the respondent No.S was closed as civil in nature on 29.07.2025 due to money related issue. It is further submitted that except conducting enquiry on the complaint given by the respondent No.S, the respondent No.4 did not interfere in civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.5. The respondent No.4 neither harassed the petitioner nor made the petitioner to execute an agreement dated 12.07.2025 and did not interfere with the personal life and liberty of the peiitioner at nay point of time. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. I

5. Perusecl the disputed agreement for payment of amount (Full and Final Settlement) executed on 72.07 .2025 by and between the petitioner and the respondents No.5 and 6 which deals with hnancial agreement. The learned Assistant Government pleader has categorically submitted that the respondent No.4 except causing an enquiry into the complaint lodged by the respondent No.S against the petitioner and revealcd that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents No.S and 5 are pureiy civil in nature related to recovery of money, the respondent No.4 did not harass the petitioner and had I t I l 4 l closed the romplaint as civil in nature on 29.07.1>_025 clue to monev relatcd issue.

6. In thitt view of the matter, recording the submissions made by the iearnecl counsel on either side, this Court of the considered opinion tha t the contents narrated in the disputed agreement dated 12.07.2025 are purely civil in nature for recovery of money and warrants no interference. However, il the petitioner is aggrieved by the very e;<ecution of the disputed agreement dated \2.OT.2O25, he may puriue the remedies as available under larv. Accor,1ingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to (:osts As a sequel, misccilaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand r:losed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA. ASSIbTANT REGISTRAR a- SECTION OFFICER To \

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home Dr B R Ambedkar Bhavan Secretaria Buildings State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Patancheru, Sangareddy District. 4. The Statiorr House Officer, Patancheru, Sangareddy District. 5. One CC to Ms SNEHA BACHANABOINA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs tr GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabac. [OUT]

7. Two CD C,)pies SA GJP ,:'.t. : 19 sEP zffi \ ..\: ,7 HIGH COUITT DATED:0910912025 ORDER WP.No.26089 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.