1. Mohammed Basharath Hussain v. The State of Telangana

arbitrary, unconstitutional, colourable exercise of power and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of lhe Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondents not to summon or harass the petitioner in any manner whatsoever in respect of FIR No. 205 of 2016 in the interest of justice. I.A. N O:2 OF 2016( WPMP. NO: 30904 OF 2016) 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 direct the 2nd respondent herein to conduct an enquiry into the highhanded actions of the 4th respondent herein and his sub-ordinates against the petitioners herein and to take appropriate action against them, pending disposal of the above writ petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2016( WPMP. NO: 30906 OF 2016) 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 direct the 4th respondent herein to not to either summon or harass the petitioners without following any due process of law in any manner whatsoever in the interest of justice in respect of FIR No. 2O5 of 2016, pending disposal of the above writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016( WVMP. NO: 4011 OF 20'16) Between: '1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal, Secretary, Home Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, The State of Telangana, Police Head Quarters at Hyderabad.

3. The Superintendant of Police, Medak District. 4. The Station House Officer, Siddipet Town Police Station, Medak District. ...PETITIONERS/R.1 to 4/R.1 to 4 AND 1 2 Mohammed Basharath Hussain, S/o. Md. Moulana, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, Farzana.-Begum, W/o Md. Basharath Hussain, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Housewife,

3. Mohammed Arshad, S/o Md. Basharath Hussain, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, All are R/o. D.No.10-4-'16112, Nasarpura, Siddipet, Medak District, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS^^/RIT PETITIONERS 4. Sulthan Asif lqbal Iv'lA, S/o Sulthan, Occ: Court Employee, Siddipet, Medak District, Telangana. (R-4 not necessary) ...RESPONDENT/R.5/R.5 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 vacate the interim order dated granted in WPMP No.30906/2016 in WP No.25031/20'16 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BOTTA PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRI M. SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 25031 OF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...fo rssue an appropiate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondents herein more particularly the respondent No. 4 and his sub-ordinate staff in summoning the petitioners herein and abusing them illegally in all the possible manners at the instance of the dh respondent herein without any valid reason, as being ittegal, ahitrary, unconstitutional, colourable exercise of power and violative of Arlicles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondents nol Io summon or harass the petitioners in any manner whatsoever in respect of FIR No. 205 of 2016 in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders . . ."

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Mr. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that Crime No. 205 of 2016 was duly investigated and, upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, whereupon C.C. No. 5 of 2018 was registered on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet. lt is further submitted that the said case was settled before the Lok Adalat on

12.07.2022. He further contends that the allegations regarding the alleged summoning and harassment of the petitioners without any valid 1 reason are unfounded, and that the presence of the petitioners was secured only for the purpose of investigation in the said crime. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition

4. I have perused the material available on record.

5. The contention of the petitioners is that respondent No. 4, acting at the instance of unofficial respondent No. 5, had summoned and harassed them without any lawful justification, The explanation offered by the respondents/Police authorities is that the presence of the petitioners was secured only in connection with the investigation of the said crime However, in view of the subsequent developments reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, namely, the amicable settlement between the parties and the compounding of offences in the pending Calendar Case, it is evident that the grievance raised by the petitioners has become infructuous and no longer survives for adjudication

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A. SREENIVASA ASSISTANT REGI R S EDDY To //TRUE COPY// \ ,\ \

1. One CCto SRI BOTTA PRAVEEN KUMAR RE 2. Two CCs to GP for Home' High Court for Hyderabad [OUTI SECTION OFFICER DY Advocate [OPUC] State of Telangana at

3. Two CD CoPies MP BM Vk HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 ! STT\TE o() 1 3 rtB 2tr26 ,:) ,:;/ ORDER WP.No.25031 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS !NFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS C w-, {..\'o