B. Bhuvaneshwari Devi v. 1. The State of Telangana

6. ChagAntipati Subramanyam, S/9. Chagantipati V_enkata Subba Rao, Aged- Major, Obc- Head Condtable - Badge No. HC 2O8p-, Presently stationed at Madannapet Police Station, Near- water tank, Mqdaqnqpet, Hyderabad District, Tdangana State - 500036. Native of- H. No. -7-45, D- N -C-olony, Muthangi, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana State - 502300. 7. Ankilla Srinath, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, Aged- Major, Occupation- Business, Wo. H. No.7-4141A. Brundavan Colony, lbrahimpatnam (Khalsa), Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State - 501506. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declarring the action of the respondent No.G in harassing the,petitioner by threatening to register false criminal cases against her and her husband as illegal, arbitraty, unjust and unconstitutional and consequenfly direct the respondent No 6 not to harass the petitioner by making calls/summoning her to demands of extortion without due process of law in the interest of justice lA NO: 1OF 2O2s Petition ttnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stdted in the affidavit file'd in support of the petition, the High Court may be 'pleased to direct the rer;pondent No.6 not to harass the petitioner by making calls/summoninl; her to demands of extortion without due process of law in the interest of justice counsel for the Petitioner : sRl THAKUR GHANDRA KAMAL SINGH counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: AGp FoR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 &7 : --- The Court made the following: ORDER i I I I ! i I i i i I I I I I i I I : i I I I i I I I I , It I 1 : i i i i i , ; i 1 i i : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR U|RIT PETITION No.3O275 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "...declaring the action of the respondent No.6 in ltarassing tte petitioner bg threatening to register false criminal ca,ses against her and her husband as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstittttional and consequentlg direct the respondent No.6 not to tti;:rc,ss the petitioner bg making calls/ summoning her to demands of extortion without due process of lanlt. -."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 5. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal. Notice to respondent Nos.6 arrd 7 is hereby dispensed with.

3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner submits that there are certain financial disputes between petitioner and respondent No.6 who is working as Head Constable in Police Departrnent and he is having a private finance business and several other allied businesses. It is submitted that respondent No.7 who is in no way connected with the issue, started extorting money from the petitioner at the behest of respondent No.6. It is submitted that from the past one "/ 2 montll respondent Nos.6 and 7 are threatening the petitioner to settle the financial issues failing which they will file false complaints against the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. '+. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home has placecl a copy of instructions issued by Sub-Inspector of police, Madanrnapet Police station, Hyderabad and would submit that respondent No.6 has not given a.ny complaint against the petitioner as on today and respondent No.S also has not registe red any cases against the petitioner tiil date. It is submitted that after leceipt of information with regard to present writ pr:tition, the Inspector of police enquired respondent No-6 wherein he stated that the petitioner has taken certain amount as hand loan, but failed to repay the same even after lapse of one year. lt is submitted that instead of repaying the loan, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is further revealed that petitioner has taken hand loan from respondent No.7 and failed to repay the said loan amount. However, respondent No.7 has nc,t lodged any complaint against the petitioner and that respon'lent No.5 has never called the petitioner and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. \ \ v 3

5. In that view of the matter, since no complaint was filed against the petitioner, this writ petition cannot be decided on mere assumptions and presumptions without any valid evidence, and the same is devoid of merits

6. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shafl stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. To Sd/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO //rRUE copytt ASStsrANTltEGtsrRAR sEcrlgft OFFTCER

1. one cc to SRr THAKUR CHANDRA KAMAL srNGH, Advocate topucl 2' Two ccs to Gp for H.ME, High court for the state of rerangana. [oUT] _...9.. Two CD Copies PVUMP t I HIGH COURT DATED.0711012025 ffn' \-) .-) t * "THE S Ta 1., I 1 7 F{:B \l?fi .i ;. :l _i'. ,, .-nt:=a*.;:'" -,,"';:-.* ORDER WP.No.30275 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS