Writ petition challenging police action in detaining petitioner over a civil money dispute. Court noted police findings that dispute was civil and disposed of petition without further orders.
Writ petition disposed of without further orders as police confirmed no interference in civil disputes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA
(Special Original J u risdiction)
IUONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 9748 OF 2020
Between:
lVanda Nagaraju, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, aged 30years Occ. Agriculture, R/o. HNo 4-117l1 Nainpaka Village, Chityala Mandal Jayashankar Bhupalpally District
...PETTTTONER(S)
AND
The Commissioner, Warangal Commissionerate, Warangal.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 l/andamus, declaring the action of the respondents police particularly 4th respondent police in calling the petitioner to his police station without having any valid reasons or complaint and on the influence of the unofficial respondent no.5 and the keeping the petitioner in hours to their police station and interfering into the civil matter is highly illegally, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents police particularly 4th respondent not to call the petitioners to their police frequently without havrng any valid reasons and not to interfere into the civil matters.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 15'1 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 particularly 4th respondent Sl not to call the petitioner to their police station without having any valid reasons and interfering into the civil and money disputes, pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMr\ 1
\A/RIT PETITION No.9748 of 2O2O
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed under Articlo 226 of the Constitution of I rdia for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to de:lare the action of the 4rh resporrdent police in calling the petitioner to th(l pol,ce station without having e ny valid reason or complaint and keeping tl^3 petitioner in the police station and interfering into the civil matters and r oney disputes between the pe:itioner and the 5th respondent, as highly lll39a, arbitrary and against the principles of naturaljustice and also vlolirlive of Articles 14, 19 and 21 o'the Constitution of India.
4, Learned counsel for the petitioner, whlle reite-i tingt the writ averments, submits that there were certain money transa( tiorrs between the petitioner ard the 5th respondent, which thepetili,)ner had duly discharged. Lerrned counsel further submits that notu'i hstanding the above discharge, the 5th respondent has been once aga n ittsistingfor payment of th: said amount and has approached the 'th respondent, whereby the 4'' respondent is calling thepetitioner to th(pclice station and insisting tf-epetitioner topay the said amount to the ithrespondent, when no such ;rmount is due. Hence, thepresent writpeti:i ln,
2
respondent. By the said written instructions, it iS stated that the 5l' respondent in the writ petition made a complalnt with the said authority on 27.06.2020 against the petitioner with regard to alleged payment of money. On preliminary enquiry, since it was found that the dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent with regard to payment of money is civil in nature. Thus, the respondent authority has issued a notice dated 30.06.2020 to the complainant/ 5th respondent informing as to the action taken on the complaint as "civil in nature" and directed the complainant to approach the competent civil Court.
B. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs
SD/. M.MANJULA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' j SECTION OFFICER
To, 1. The Prl Secretary, Home Department, State of Telangana' Secretariat Buildings' Hvderabad. 2 ifr;"d;;i.sioner,waranqal commissionerate' warangal
'c11 5 s;;.;;i;;a;;ioi potice, jivaJnanxi'-anupalp^qllvDistrict at Bhupalpjrllv ; ;iik;;'ii;.,5-" briic",, ffiru-ioiiiesiation 'chiiyala, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.
- o; Cb toSri. AjayKumar [,'ladisetty, Advoca-te (oPU-C) 6. Two CCsto Gp for no.u, iidn Cirii ioi inJ Stuie of Telangana at Hvderabad(OUT) 7. Two CDCoPies.
PIVl
{"'-
HIGH COURT
DATED:0610712020
ORDER
t. OF TC
.$s)
c.Y
.l_ \"
;C
'"'.),
,J- {.$
<br>'i." t
WP.No.9748 of 2020
DISPOSING CIF THE WP WITHOUT CCSTS.
5rv 3.ti? )r rg'r-*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the police action in calling the petitioner to the station without valid reason and interfering in the civil dispute between him and the 5th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vanda Nagaraju
The State of Telangana
The Commissioner, Warangal Commissionerate
Superintendent of Police, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District
Station House Officer, Chityala Police Station
Engali Papaiah
T. Vinod Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
