Uppala Praveen Kumar v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court malr be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in interfering into the peaceful life and liberty and also interfering into the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 and trying to arrest the petitioner, without following due process of law under the provisions of Section 35 (3) of B.N.S.S. Act and non-initiating to implement the directions of the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and trying to arrest the Petitioner in Crime No. 1015 of 2025 for the offences under Section 316(2), 318(4), 352, 351 (2) BNS, dated 1 1.07.2025 on the file of Police Station, Miyapur without issuing any notice under Section 35 (3) of B.N.S.S. by colluding with the Respondent No.7, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 not to interfere into the peaceful life and liberty and also not to interfere into the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 and not to arrest the petitioner, to follow the due process of law under the provisions of Section 35 (3) of B.N.S.S. Act and to implement the directions of the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and not to arrest the Petitioner in Crime No. 101 5 of 2025 for the offences under Section 316(2), 318(4), 352,351 (2) BNS, dated 111O712025 on the file of Police Station, t\/iyapur without issuing any notice under Section 35 (3) of B.N.S.S. by colluding with the Respondent No.7. I.A.NO:'f OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated iri the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.S not to interfere into the peaceful life and liberty and also not to interfere into the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 and not to arrest the petitioner, to follow the due process of law under the provisions of Section 35 (3) of B.N.S.S. Act and to implement the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and not to arrest the Petitioner in Crime No. 101 5 ol 2025 for the offences under Section 316(2), 318(4), 352, 351 (2) BNS, dated : 11.O7.2025 on the file of Police Station, Miyapur without issuing any notice under Section 35 (3) of B.N.S.S. by colluding with the Respondent No.7 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.SUHAS CHARY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : AGP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.7 : - The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.32't40 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief/s:- '-..ro r:ssue an order or direction more parliculady one in the nature ol wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.s in inteieing into the peaccful life and libedy and also inte,leing inlo lhe civil disputes belween the petitioner and the respondent No.7 and trying to anest the petitbner, without tollowing due process of law under the provisions ol Section 35(3) of B/VSS Act and noninitialing to implement the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Coutt in Amesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and trying to anest the petitioner in Crime No-1015 of 2025 for the offen@s under Section 316(2), 318(4), 352, 351 (2) BNS, dated 11.07.2025 on the lile of Police Station, Myapur without issuing any notice undet Section 35(3) of BNSS by co uding with the respondent No.7, is illegal, arbitrcry, unconstitutional and violation of Atticles 14, 15, 21 and 300- A of Constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the rcspondent No.s not to intedere into the Waceful life and libedy and also not to interfere into the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.7 and not to arrest the pelitioner, to follow the clue prooess of law under the provisions of Section 35(3, of BNSS Act and to imptdment the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Coutt in Anesh Kuhar Vs. State of Bihar and not to arrest the petitioner in Crime No.1015 of 205 tot the ottences under Sectbns 316(2), 318(4), 352, 351 -(2) BNS, dated 11.07.2025 on the file ol Polbe Station, Miyapur without issuing any notbe under Sectbn 35 (3) of A,VSS by colluding with the respondent No.7 and pass ..-"

2. Heard Mr.A. Suhas Chary, learned counsel representing for the petitioner and Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, leamed counsel Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistiant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.'l to 6. I 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police authorities are interfering in civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent, and are further attempting to arrest the petitioner in Crime No.1015 of 2025 without issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and without following the due process of law. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for appropriate directions restraining such interference and ensuring compliance with the statutory safeguards.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6, submits that the respondent police authorities have not interfered in any civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent, and that they have been acting strictly within the scope of their lawful duties. lt is further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are baseless and unsupported by material evidence. Therefore, it is contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

5. I have carefully perused the material placed on iecord and considered the submissions made by both sides.

6. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.S has been interfering with his life and personal liberty, as well as with civil 1. \ disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent No.7. lt is also 3 brought to the notice of this Court that a crime is pending investigation, in which the petitioner apprehends coercive action in violation of procedural safeguards.

7. Having regard to the averments in the petitioner's affidavit and the submissions advanced, this Court finds it appropriate to issue directions to ensure that the police authorities act strictly within the bounds of law. Accordingly, the respondent police authorities, particularly respondent No.5, are directed not to interfere in the civil disputes between the I I petitioner and the unofficial respondent and not to take any coercive action against the petitioner except in accordance with law. \ \

8. lnsofar as the pending crime proceedings are concerned, the police authorities are directed to follow the due process of law as envisaged under the CrPC/BNSS, and in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amesh Kumar v. State of Bihar l(20141 8 SCC 2731, before taking any action affecting the petitioner's liberty.

9. lt is, however, clarified that any action taken by the police strictly in compliance with law and in the discharge of their legitimate duties shall stand protected. I :ii 4

10. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGqTRARo SECTION OFFICER I

1. The Principral Secretary, Home Department, secretariat Building, Secretariat, State of Telangana at HYderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad ' 5. fn" Comrissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Cyberabad Commissionerate' Hyderabad. 4. i6; D"pray Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing (EOW) " Oivis'ori, G'achibowli, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hldera.bad . . S in" Staiio" House Offi6er, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Gachibowli, o. i6e-station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad z. iwo Ccs to GP FoH HoME, High Court for the State of Telangana at 8. oire cc to sRl RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [oPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies Cvberabad Commissionerate' Hyderabad. Commissionerate, HYderabad. Hyderabad. [OUT] To SA GJP \ \ ,/- HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 ORDER WP.No.32140 ot 2025 t. .F,l t: l.q r.c \\ ..c \\ 0 B r{B\J IE , !,r\-r-l] DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.