The High Court · 2025

Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lrr ia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ttrr High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particular I one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the high handed action of the, espondents No.3 to 8 as illegal, violative of fundamental rights, more fully the ri( hts guaranteed under article 19, 21, 22 of the constitution of lndia besides )eing violative of the procedure contemplated under section 41A of Cr.P.C and 1 unish them as per the guidelines of the Honble Supreme Court by awarding rx mpensation to us for illegal detention and treating us in the manner stated abov: LA. NO:l OF 20J7@PMP. NO: 31192 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the i) 'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 3 to 8 not to call the petitir> rers to police station without issuing proper notices and without following due p r rcedure and to return mobiie phone kept with respondent No.3, pending disposal r f the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. MARIA SABRINA PHILIP I :EP. FOR SRI NOMOS VISTAS THE LAU YERS Counsel for the Respondent No.'t & 2: SRI D. PRADEEP, ,q ;ST. GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 8: - - - - Counsel for the Respondent No.9 to'11: SRI G. MADHUSLII IHAN KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER 7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.25'159 OF 2017 DATE: 12.12.2025 Betweenr P.Krishna Yadav & Others ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana & Others ...Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief "...lssue a writ or direction more pafiiculaiy one in the nature of Writ of declaing the high handed action of the respondents No.3 to 8 as illegal, violative of fundamental ights, more fully the ights guaranteed under adicle 19, 21, 22 of the constitution of lndia besides being violalive of the procedure contemplated under section 41A of Cr.P.O and punish them as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme CourT by awarding compensation to us forillegal detention and treating us in the manner stated above and pass. . ."

2. Heard Ms.Maria Sabrina Philip, leamed counsel representing Nomos Vistas The Lawyers, for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. !tE5 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits hat respondents Nos. 3 to 8 have acted in a high-handed manner wilt out following the due process of law in the course of crime proceec ngs, contrary to the settled judicial pronouncements. Hence, the pr:;ent writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions and for ( rant of compensation for alleged illegal detention duiing the course rf investigation. lt is further submitted that, due to unavoidable r,i cumstances, certain documents could not be placed on record, and tl': petitioner prays for passing appropriate orders.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fo Home submits that the petitioners are accused in Crime No.89 of 20' and that, during the course of investigation, a notice under Section , 1-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") was serve<l on the petitioner on

16.07.2017. The matter was thereafter taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C. No.17 of 2018 on the file of the learned Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampall' . Subsequently, the parties entered into an amicable settlement beforr> the Lok Adalat, and the offences were compounded on 06.12.201) Accordingly, it is submitted that nothing further survives for cons i, leration in this writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. \

5. I have perused the material placed on recorc I l

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents/police authorities have failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the Cr.P.C. and binding judicial precedents. lt is also alleged that the petitioner was subjected to illegal detention, notwithstanding the issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C-

7. However, the submission made by the Leamed Assistant Government Pleader demonstrates that due process was duly followed a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioner, the investigation was completed, and the matter culminated in a compromise between the parties before the Lok Adalat, resulting in compounding of the offences. Therefore, nothing further remains in the crime proceedings.

8. lnsofar as the claim for compensation for alleged illegal detention is concerned, except for the petitioner's bare assertions, no material has been placed on record to prima facie substantiate such a claim. ln the absence of any credible evidence, this Court cannot draw factual conclusions regarding alleged illegal detention in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

9. ln view of the above position, the allegations of illegal detention or the claim for compensation cannot be entertained. Accordingly, in the 4 facts and circumstances of the case, nothing fur:t er remains for adjudication in this writ petition

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as inh rctuous. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stan I closed SD/.S TALLIKARJUNA RAO A!; iISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \_-, SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI NOMOS VISTAS THE LAWYERS, Ad'a cate IOPUC] 2. One CC to SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN KUMAR, Advoca.t [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State : Telangana. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies BN BS ,V \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025 ORDER WP.No.25159 ot 2017 . -';-= z'.' .z \ '' //".' t'/ -Q-- ir.ll{? ?s t,.r]4, 'ir J ':'a.. l* r; [: lj lriI 0E[ 206 z .o ; :,t * ),/ /|,/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS