fi,4ohammad Akram Ali v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Wipro Circle, Financial Drstrict, Nanakramguda, Rangareddy District. 9. Mr. MS Rao, S/o. Unknown, Rl/o.25th Floor, Sumadhura Acropolis, Near Wipro Circle, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Rangareddy District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.S and 6 interfering in day to day business activities of the petitioner with high handed, in collusion with tlespondent No.B and 9 and under the political umbrage threatening the p etitioner to return the amount despite Respondent No.B and 9 entered into oral agreement and however no complaint or FIR lodged by official Respondents ag,rinst petitioner, and subjecting the petitioner to physical and mental torture by calling the petitioner every day and threal.ing the petitioner with dire consequencrrs and in gross violation of Ar.19 and 21 cl Constitution of India and in clear cortravention in guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court Judgement in LalithChatu rvedi Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 SCC Online 171) and by not consic ering the representations submitted by pelitioners dt.02.09.2025 as arbitrary, illergal and in violation of Principle of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to take necessary/ appropriate action against Respondent No.5 and 6. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 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 the Respondent No.5 and 6 not to interfere with day to day business activities of petitic,ner and stop calling and messaging to Petitioner. Counsel for the Fretitioner : SRI P.SAI SANTOSH Counsel for the tlespondent Nos.1 to 6 : SRI C.ANIKETH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Flespondent Nos.7 to 9 : - The Court made t:he following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI{ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.2743L OF 2025 o DER: This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following rehef/ s: "... to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more panicularly one in the nature of IUa.ndamus declaring the action of the Fispondents No.5 ingerfenng in day to day business activities of the petitioner with .al{e .O high handed, in collusion with Respondent No.8 and 9 and under the political.umb-rage threatening the petitioner ro rerum the amount despite Respondent No.8 and 9 entered into oral agreemenr and however- no complaint or FIR lodged by official Respondints against pedtioner, and to phpical and mental torroe by calling the subjecting the petirioner petitioner every.day and dreatening the petitioner wirh dire corsequences and in gross violation of Ar.19 and 21 of Constitution of India and L cbar guidelines laid down by tlonble Suprcme coun contravention in Judgement in lalithChatuwedi Vs.State of I_Ittar pradesh (2024 SCC Online 171) and by not considering dre representations submimed by pedtioners dt.02.09.2)25 as arbitrary,_ illegal and in ,iolation of principle of Natural Justice and consequendy direci the Respondent No,2 to take necessary/ appropriate action agairst Respondeni No.5 and'6 and to pass......." _ - _

2. FIeard NIr.P.Sai Santosh, learned counsel for rhe peririoner and lvlr.CAniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Govemment pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. Leamed counsel for the petirioner submim that at the behest of respondent Nos.S and 9, respondent Nos.5 artd 6 are interfering . 2 with the day to day business activities of the petitioner and the respondent l,olice authorities is trying to torture through phone calls from dil ferent numbers, thereby, interfering'n/fuh his business and the same has been reported to the Commissioner of Police. Ffu fr.mher cont€nts that the police are even threaterurg to renrrn the amount which said to have given by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 pertaining a wedding event, thereby, interfering with the civil disputes. Thts, prayed f or necess ary directions.

4. Leamerl fusistant Govemment Pleader for Home submits that, on 23.C7.2025, the respondent No.6/StatiorL House Officer, Rajendranager, Police Station, has received a complaint and before \ registration c,f crime for an enquiry, the petitione:r's presence has been called bythe officer and except that there was no occasion for the respondent police authorities to interfere witlL the business or insist him fc,r seftlement of the amounts. Thus, the contention raised in the petitioner is unfor.mded and the petition is liable to be dismissed \ - 3

5. I have penued the materials on record

6. The petitioner's contention is that the respondent police without there being anycrime interfering with the life and liberryof the petitionea insisting for senlement with respondent Ns.7 and 8 and interfering with the civil disputes. On the other hand, the respondents stand is that a petition has been received and the enquiries are underway.

7. Flaving regard to the pleadings and considering the I I limitations of the police authorities in respect to civil dispute even during investigation/proceedings in a crime, the respondent police authorities are directed to refrain from the petitione'r''s right to life and personal liberry and shall not insist the petitioner in any way for settlement of civil disputes, save and except in strict accordance vzith law. Further, respondent police authoriry is at liberry to secure the presence of the petitioner upon appropriate notice by specifying the pqpose and schedule, whereupon, the petitioner is directed to appear and give his explanation. 4

8. Vith *Lis direction, this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as t() costs. Miscell,rneou Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G. SECTION OFFICER To District. at Hvderatrad. Telanqana-500063. l.ThePrincipalsecretary,HomeDepartment,secretariat'StateofTelangana 2 il;'6;'';;;,r6"n"iarti Folice, Lakidikapool, Hvderabad, Telangana District' 5. th" Corrissioner of Police' Cyberabad Commisinorate i. fii" O"prq, Commissioner. of p'oti"e, Rajendranagar PSi' Rangareddy District S. if.r" AJir Deputy Commissioner of Potici:, Rajendlanagar PS'Rangareddy O. if''r" SrU- lttspector of Police, RajendranagarPs, Rangareddy District i. fh" Strt" lljman Rights Commiision, Opp Gandhi Bhavan' Gruhakalpa 8. i;" 6C; t,r Gp FOR HOIME' High Court for the State cf Telangana at g. oire CC to SRI P SAI sANTosH, Advocate [oPUC] 10.Two CD Cr>Pies Complex, l/J Road, Abids. Nampally Hyderabad. Hvderabad. [OUTI SA GJP HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 1 i0912025 t ..... O,. .i..\\ i 19 sEP m[5 \ :.. /.'s .' ,'1 ,,, ORDER WP.No.27431 of 2025 t DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. s