Smt.K.L.V.S. Lakshmi D/o. Sunder Rao v. The State of Telangana

Nemali Venkata Ramakrishna S/o. Rama Murthy,, R/o. Plot No.46, Sri Swamy Ayyappa Society, Khanamet, Serilingampally, RR District.

5. Mulpudi Radha Krishna tr,4urthy S/o. Not known to the, Complainant, Rl/o. Plot " No.46, Sri Swamy Ayyappa Society, Khanamet, Serilingampally, RR District. 6. Mulupudi Krishna Kumari W/o. Mulpudi Radha, Krishna Murthy, Ro. Plot No.46, Sri Swamy Ayyappa Society, Khanamet, Serilingampally, RR District. 7. Jalakam Vijay Kumar S/o. Late Kumara Swamy,, R/o. Plot No.46, Sri Swamy Ayyappa Society,Khanamet, Serilingampally, RR Diskict.

8. J,Tara Vilaykumari W/o. J.Vijay Kumar,, R/o. Plot No.46, Sri Swamy Ayyappa Society,Khanamet, Serilingampally, RR 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 to 3 in not restraining the high handed and illegal acts of the Respondent No.4 to 8 and his henchmen despite the fact of granting an injunction against the Respondent No.4 to 8 by the :\I Hon'ble lX Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at Miyapur in lA No. 964 of 2016 in OS No. 512 of 2016 and also the high handed act of the Respondent No.3 in detaining the Petitioner illegally and threatening her not to question the illegal acts of the Respondent No. 4 to 8 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law and also contrary to the order of injunction granted by the Hon'ble lX Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at t\,4iyapur in lA No. 964 of 2016 in OS No. 512 of 2016 and in violation of the f undamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioners under articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of lndia and also in violation of the constitutional guarantee contained under article 300A of the Constitution of lndia and consequentially to direct the Respondent No. '1 to 3 to protect the legal rights of the Petitioner over the property owned and held by her in the interest of Justice l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 1406 OF 2017 ) 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 2nd Respondent to take appropriate action to protect the property owned and held by the Petitioner from illegal encroachment of the Respondent No.4 to B pending disposal of the main Writ Petition in the interest of Justice Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SATISH KUMAR VARMA (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI M. SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 : --- The Court made the following: ORDER I I / ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIoN No. 1259 OF 2017 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief "...to lssue a writ, order or direction more pafticularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 7 to 3 in not restraining the high handed and illegal acts of the Respondent Nos. 4 io B and his henchmen despite the fact of granting an injunction against the Respondent Nos. 4 to I by the Hon'ble lX Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at Miyapur in l.A. No. 964 of 2016rn OS No. 512 of 2016 and also the high handed act of the Respondent No 3 in detaining the Petitioner illegally and threatening her not to question the illegal acts of the Respondent Nos.4 to 8, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law and also contrary to the order of injunction granted by the Hon'ble lX Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at Miyapur in lA No. 964 of 2016 rn OS No. .512 of 2016 and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioners under articles 1 4 and 19 of the Constitution of lndia and also in violation of the constitutional guarantee contained under Afticle 300A of the Constitution of lndia and consequentially to direct the Respondenl Nos, 7 to 3 to protect the legal rights of the Petitioner over the properly owned and held by her in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders . . ."

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner

3.1. Mr. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that the respondents/police authorities have never restrained or detained the petitioner, as alleged in the writ petition. He submits that the interaction between the petitioner and the police authorities occurred only connection with the investigation of Crime No.B24 of 2016, registered on the report of respondent No.4, and Crime No.56 of 2017, registered on the report of the petitioner herself. Hence, the allegations of unlawful restraint or harassment are baseless and unfounded

3.2. The learned Government Pleader further submits that in Crime No.B24 of 2016, which was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 4, a charge sheet was filed and the case was numbered as C.C No.416 of 2017 on the file of the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. After a full-fledged trial, the accused were acquitted by judgment dated 09.05.2025. ln contrast, Crime No.56 of 2017, registered on the report of the petitioner, was referred as "False" on

2802.2017 before the same Court. Thus, both proceedings have been concluded, and no subsisting dispute remains. lt is, therefore, contended that nothing survives for adjudlcation in this writ petition.

4. I have perused the material available on record

5. The grievance of the petitioner, as set forth in the writ petition, is that the respondents/police authorities have highhandedly restrained her, despite an order of injunction granted in her favour in O.S. No.512 of 2016, on the file of the learned lX Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at h ) Miyapur, and that they have also illegally detained and threatened her at the instance of the unofficial respondents. The explanation offered by the ( I I learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, however, demonstrates that there were criminal proceedings initiated both by and against the petitioner, and that the same have been finally concluded, one ending in acquittal and the other being referred as false. This indicates that the law has taken its course and that no pending proceedings exist warranting further interference by this Court.

6. Nonetheless, since the petitroner has alleged apprehension of future interference by the police authorities with her possession of the petition schedule property or personal liberty, this Court deems it I appropriate to issue a precautionary direction to safeguard her laMul rights

7. Accordingly, the respondents/police authorities are hereby directed to refrain from restraining or interfering with the petitioner's possession over the schedule property or her personal life and liberty, except in strict conformity with law and by following due procedure. lt is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents/police from taking lawful action in accordance with law. I

8. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition t stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending mrscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To.

1. The Principle Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer PS Madhapur, Ranga Reddy Dist., - 3. One CC to SRI SATISH KUMAR VARMA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies PVL Brt/81 \ \ I I I i I HIGH COURT DATED:1 511012025 ( t SIA iA' 3 07 tE8 2026 5-\; J. D ..- -.. , ORDER WP.No.1269 of 2017 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS El )c,4r'VeY