Disposed

Annipaka Venkateswarlu v. The DiRECTOR General Of Police

Telangana HC20 Sept 2010WP/21499/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner alleging harassment by police and threats by a private party. The court dismissed the allegations as baseless and directed the police not to harass the petitioner or interfere with the underlying civil dispute.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioner or interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, except as required by law.

Annipaka Venkateswarlu Vs The DiRECTOR… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21499 of 2010

¶3

Dated: 20.09.2010

¶4

Between: Annipaka Venkateswarlu. .. Petitioner. And The Director General of Police, A.P. State Police Head Quarters, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents.

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

The petitioner states that the 3^rd respondent, at the instance of the 4^th respondent, called him to his office on 14.08.2010 and his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank papers. He alleges that he is being called by the 3^rd respondent to his office regularly and being threatened to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the 4^th respondent. Hence, this petition is filed seeking appropriate relief.

¶7

At paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, it is stated as under:

¶8

“….It is respectively submitted that the 4^th respondent herein Mr.Nakka Abaddanam never approached this respondent nor lodged any complaint against the petitioner herein. It is respectfully submitted that the dispute of the petitioner herein as well as the unofficial respondents appeared to be money transactions and hence this respondent police has nothing to do with it. It submit that the allegations of the petitioner that this respondent at the instance of the 4^th respondent is calling him to the office regularly and threatening him to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to him on or before 01.09.2010 and further alleged that on 14.8.2010 this respondent called the petitioner to the office and by force obtained signatures on the blank papers and also at the instance of the 4^th respondent, this respondent is threatening the petitioner are absolutely false, baseless and hence the same are denied.

¶9

It is further respectively submitted that as a

¶10

precautionary measure to prevent the police from taking any action in future if any one lodges complaint against him, the petitioner rushed to this Hon’ble Court and filed the present writ petition with baseless allegations. I submit that due to bore grudge against the 4^th respondent, the petitioner leveled baseless allegations against this respondent.”

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the 3^rd respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the police station and not to interfere with any civil disputes between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent except as required under the law.

¶12

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶13

_____________ C.V.RAMULU,J

¶14

20.09.2010 v v

Annipaka Venkateswarlu v. The DiRECTOR General Of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annipaka Venkateswarlu v. The DiRECTOR General Of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pamujala Madhusudhana Rao Vs Pamujala Venkatakrishnaiah

the Kanekal Gram panchayat, Vs Apsrtc, rep. by its Regional Manager

Smt. Lakshmi Bai W/o Madhav Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

T.v.Govinda Rao Vs The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad at Basheerbagh

T.Yadagiri Vs The Nalgonda District Co-Op Central Bank Ltd.

M. Subba Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary