The High Court · 2025

6. Chava Srinivasa Rao, S/o Appaiah Aged about 52 years, Occ, Agriculture R/o Brahmanapalli village, Bonakal N/andal Khammam 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 one in the nature of WRIT OF IMANDAIVIUS, declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in interfering with personal life and liberty of the petitioners and frequently calling the petitioners in to the respondents 4 and 5 Police Stations on the guise of the FIR No. 225 of 2o1ldated 19-11 -2018 is illegal, arbitrary, Unconstitutional and violation of Articles, 19, 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners in the interest of justice and equity lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 respondents 4 and 5 not to call the petitioners frequently and not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners on the guise of Registration of Crime FIR No.22512018 dated 19-11 -2018 in the interest of justice and equity pending disposal of the main Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH; JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRt D. PRADEEP , AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER r\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI UIRIT PETITIO N No. 425o2 OF 2018 O2"d December, 20125 Between: Allamula Bala Krishna and another The State of Telang€rna & 5 others AND ...Petitioners ....Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is liled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the follo*i.rg relief: "...to issue a urit order or direction more particularlg one inthe nature of WRIT OF MANDAMIJS, declaring ttrc action of tle respondents 4 and 5 in interfering with personal lik and liberty of the petitioners and frequentlg calling th.e petitioners in to tlrc respondents 4 and. 5 Police Stations on tLrc guise of tlrc FIR lVo. 225 of 2O18 dated. 19.11.2018 zs illegal, arbttrary, Unconstitutional and uiolation of Articles 19, 27 of the constifution of India and conseEtentlg direct ttrc respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere uith the personal - ..i:.ir]JxYlAi; :..1is.*rafF# . ,:'itlffi 2 life and liberty of tte petitioners in the interest of justice and eqtitg arud pass..."

2. Heard Mr.Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.1 to 5

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been interfering with the petitioners' personal life and liberty by freqrrently summoning them to the Police Station. Aggrieved by such actions, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions from this Court.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that, as per the instructions received, the Police have not interfered with the petitioners' life and liberty as alleged. It is further submitted that the Police have acted strictly within the bounds of law, and that the petitioners' presence was secured only in connection with an enquiry based on the representation made by the 1'r t Ia I I 3 unofficial respondents. As the said crime has since been closed by filing a final report, there is no occasion for the Police to summon the petitioners again. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The specilic grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been calling them to the Police Station and interfering with their personal life and liberty without any lawful authority. Having considered the averments made in the affidavit, the submissions of the reSpondent Police, and bearing in mind the limitations placed on Police authorit5r even during criminal proceedings, this Court directs respondent Nos. 4 and 5, in particular, to refrain from any unlawful interference with the petitioners' life and liberty as guaranteed under Article 2l of the Constitution of India, except in strict conformity with law and by following due process. 'ir::.1''.i::rri :.. .::' l'":lr:liii?* 4 I

7. With this direction, this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shatl stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings, T.S.,Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam Commissionerate, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District (Old Karimnagar District)

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, [Vanchiryal, Manchiryal District (Old Adilabad District) Khammam district

4. The Station House Officer, l/andamarri Police Station, fi/andamarri, district

5. The Station House Officer, Bonakal Police Station, Bonakal, Khammam 6. One CC to SRl. CH JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at B. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] .B tVI GJP w \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:0211212025 I .s €o ltL \ .r*- \. qS \ rictt{ * ORDER WP.No.42502 ot 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cei> co\' \\ X@