'1 . Bethi Thirumal Rao v. The State of Telangana

Peram Srikanth, S/o.Late Kanakaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ, Business, Rr/o.H. No.21 -4-35, Shanthi Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam, Dist. Peddapalli. Sunil Sadashiv Jadhav, S/o.Sadashiv Jadhav, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.1 9-7-8, Laxminagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam, Peddapalli. 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 or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or orders declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in calling the petitioners to the Police Station, Godavarikhani I ...RESPONDENTS / Town at the instance of Respondent No.5 to 7 and interfering in civil disputes and forcing the petitioners to sign on blank white papers and threatening the petitioners to settle the dispute with Respondent No.s to 7 tas being arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, violative of Articles '14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and against to the principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to not to interfere in civil disputes between the petitioners and Respondent No.5 to 7 and not to call the petitioners to Police Station Godavarikhani I Town and not to take any coercive action against the petitioners. lA 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. 4 to not to interfere in civil disputes between the petitioners and Respondent No.5 to 7 and not to call the petitioners to Police Station Godavarikhani I Town pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, ASST. GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.5 to 7: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE TIOT{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAIUJI WRIT PETITION No.31859 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the follou'ing relief/s:- "...to issue a writ or order more parLicularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or orders declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in calling the petitioners to the Police Station, Godavarikhani I Town at the instance of Respondent No.s to 7 and interfering in ciYil disputes and forcing the petitioners to sign on blank white papers and threatninB the petitioncrs to settle the dispute with Respondent No.s to 7 as being arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, violative of Articles 1,1, 16 and 21 r-,f the ConstituEon of lndia and against to the prirrciples of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to no1 to interfere in civil disputes between the petitioners aJld Respondent No.s to 7 and not to call the petilioners to Police StaLion Godavarikhani I Town and not to take anl/ coercive acLion against the petitioners to pass......"

2. Heard Mr.Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Plcader for Hotne appearing for respondent Nos. 1to4.

3. [rarned counsel for the petitioners submits t]rat respondent No.3, at the instance of the unofficial respondents (respondent Nos.S to 7), is interfering in civil disputes between the parties and surnmoning the petitioners to the police station. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions. 2 L

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home submits that respondent No.3 has not interfered in the civil disputes betu,een the petitioners arnd the unofficial respondents as alleged. He further submits that Crime No.506 of 2O2S has been registered against the petitioners, ald except for conducting an enquiry in connectron u.ith the said crin-re, there nas no occasion for the respondent police to interfere in the <:irril disputes. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have perused the material availal.tlc on record

6. Having regard to the pctitioners, assertion that respondent No.3 is interfering in civil disputes, and considering the settled legal position regarding the iimited jurisdiction of the police in matters involving civil rights and pending investigations, this Court is of the vieu'that issuing an appropriate drrection to the respondents would adcquat_eiy redress the grievance of the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, respondent No.3, as well as the other respondent police authoritics, are dirccted to refrain from interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioners and the unofhcial respondents. Thc petitioners shall not bc summoned to the police station cxcept in strict accorclance u.irh law and.i+r- connection u"ith any criuiinal proceedings lawfully pending. 3

8. It is needless to observe that, while conducting any proceedings in the pending crime against the petitioners, the respondent potce shall strictly adhere to due process of law.

9. With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stald closed. ,TRUE COPY// s . P.C.SULEKHA DE S ISTANT REG! ON OFFICER '1 . The Principal Secretary, Home Department, The State 2. The Police Commissioner, Ramagumdam Police Co Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad. f Telangana, rsstonerate, Peddapalli District.

3. The ln:nector of Police, PS Godavarikhani I Town, Dist. Peddapalli. 4. One CC to SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies To, BSR BN 4^o-, tr$) HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 ORDER WP.No.31859 of 2025 (:) , I l-,\ !? '\\t,l * /astrH1 , 6' 3( q |1 n ,T __l ;i: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -ft c t-l I \r c qlrb6 (