Dismissed

Sri Puralasetty Sreedhar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Oct 2023WP/18858/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition where petitioners alleged police harassment to force a property sale. Petitioners claimed no FIR existed while respondents cited a pending criminal case. Court directed police not to interfere with civil rights but allowed continuation of investigation. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 not to interfere with civil rights of petitioners; liberty to proceed with investigation of Crime No.738 of 2023.

Sri Puralasetty Sreedhar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 18858 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri Puralasetty Sreedhar, S/o Late Sri P. Ayyanna, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business(MD), Rl/o Villa No. 9, Phase l, Kamalapuri Colony, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶11

Sri Sreekumar Gopinadha Kurup, S/o Sri V. K. Gopinadha Kurup, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Services, R/o Flat No.502, Ayyanna Pride, Beverly Hills, Near AudiShowroom,Madhapur,Hyderabad-500081.

¶12

...'ET'T.ONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

¶16

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, [t/adhapur Zone.

¶17

The Additional Commissioner of Police, N/adhapur Division.

¶18

Sri N. Tirupathi, age about 46years lnspector of Police, lr,4adhapur PS.

¶19

Sri N. Venkanna, age about 40 yea rsSub-lnspector of Police, Sector l,Madapur P.S

¶20

.....OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS

¶21

N.A. Prasad, S/o Not Known, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Busrness, R/o Gl and G2, Ayyanna Pride, Beverly Hills, Near Audi Showroom. Madhapur, Hyderabad - 50008'1 .

¶22

Smt. N. Prasanna, Wo Sri N.A. Prasad, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o G I & G2 , Ayyanna Pride, Beverly Hills, Near Audi Showroom, Madhapur, Hvderabad -500081

¶23

....uNoFFrcrAL RE''.NDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitutron 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 Writ of Mandamus. (a) Declaring the action of the Respondents more specifically that of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in harassing the Petitioners by calling them and summoning them to the Madhapur Police Station so as to pressurize them to enter into a sale transaction with the Unofficial Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 with

¶25

respect to Flat No. 4O2, Ayyanna pristine, Rr>ad No g, Kakatiya Hills, Guttala Begumpet, Kavuri Hirrs, tr,4adhapur, Hyderabad. at the behest of the Respondent Nos. 7 a.d B, despite there being no Complaint, much less an FIR against the Petitioners and wrthout folowing due process of raw as bad, arbitrary, ilegar and unconstitutional and vrolatrve of article 14, 19,21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and (b)consequentially, direct the Respondents not to interfere in the civil Disputes in relation to Flat No. 402, Ayyanna p-istine, Road No g, Kakatiya HiIs, Gutta la Begum pet, Kavuri Flills, t\z,ladhapur, Hydr:rabad lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

Petrtion under Sectron 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stared in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents not to harass the petrtic,ners wrth regard to Frat No.4o2, Ayyanna P.stine, Road No g, Kakatiya Hi[s, Guttara Begumpet, Kavuri Hifls, Madhapur, Hyderabad by repeatedly calling them to the police station, without following due process of law, pending adjudication of the Writ pelition

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MANOGNyA VOL|MINENI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: Gp FOR HOME

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7&g: None Appeared

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE C. V. BHASKAII REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO.18858 OF 2023

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The n,rit petition is iiled seeking following rcliel

¶34

".. ...pleased to issuc a writ, ordcr or directron morc 1;articul;rrly in the naturc of Writ of Mandamus

¶35

(al l)cclaring the action of rhe Rcspondents morc specrlrcally that of Resp()ndeitt Nos 5 and 6 rn harassing thc Petitrorrer-s by callrng them and summonrng them t() tlrc M:rdhirprrr Pohce Station so as to pressurize them to en(cr into a sale transaction with rhe Unofficial Rcspondcnt Nos 7 and 8 rvith respect to Flat No. 402 Ayyanna Pristine Road No 8 Kakati-ya Hills Guttala Begumpet Kar,,uri Ilills Madhapur Il,vderabad at the behest of the Rcspondent Nos. 7 and 8 dcspite thcre bcing no Complaint much less an FIR against thc Petitlotrers and wilhout following due process o[ l:rw as bacl arbirrary rllegal and unconstitutional and viola ve of article t4 19 2I and 3O0A of the Constitution of India and

¶36

(b) Consequcntially dircct the Respondents not to intcrfcre rn the Civil Disputes in relation to Flat No- 402 AyYanna Pristine Road No 8 Kakatiya Hills Guttala Begumpet Kan-rri Hills Madhapur Hyderabad . .. .. ."

¶37

2 Petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director aucl Pctitioner

¶38

No.2 is the Advisor of Ayyanna Infra Private Limited, which is inr,olved in tl're business of in{rastructure and corlstruction. It is the case of the petitioners that the cornpany had taken uP a resiclcntial prolcct 1. e. Ayyanna Pristine, Road No.8, Kakatiya Hills, Guttala Begumpet, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad for the construction

¶39

¶40

ol aP.t11111,11t brrilcling. [n thc coursc of the busir-rcss, respondent N..7 hacl .frfrroachcd the pctitioners ror bu'ing ir ilat i^ A''r..rr..-r I'risti.e .rnri als. paicl aclr.arcc ar.rr,urrts f.r bo.kirrg thc flat. Disprutes arost' lrctl't'r'rr the pctitiorer; a,d r.cspondcrrt No.7 with rcgarrl to tlre conrplr tn{ of tr,lltS a1d ,:o1ditio1s of tfic agreertrerrts eutt'r'ctl lirr pLrrl-h.tslne thc ilat. It is the further case ol. thc Lretiti..ers^{that at} tht ir-rstigatio. ol resporrdent Nos.z and u, responrlellt Nos.5 anrl t., ar.e frcrluently summoning the petitioncrs to the policc statrorr .ln(1 tr rl'Cilt.- tfit,m t6 cnter ilto scttlernclt I,t,itl-r rcsfronclL.nt Nos.7 ancl ll as pe.r tht, terms dictated by them. 3. Lt arrnerl counscl appc.aring for respondent Nos.7 ancl g subnrits that re,sponclent Nos.7 and g have approached the petitio.crs for ps1sl1;15;1.g of frat and have paid the acr'ance amou,ts ir.cl retlucsted thc petitio.ers Io complete the r,r,.rk .rs per the tcrrns.rcl c.nditio.s ,f the agreemc.t and to hando*cr the saicl flat to entrble them to oc(rupy the said premises. Lear'ed counsel further subr.its thirt t:xcept requcsti.g t. the petitioners to conrprete the u,ork, rcsponclcnt Nos.7 ancl 8 havc lrot given arrv corlplaint

¶41

¶42

t I

¶43

.rs.inst the petitioners nor influcncccl the policc to interricrt, rvitlr the

¶44

busirrcss .rctivitics oI the petitiorrers.

¶45

'1. [-c.rrrc-d Assistarrt cove,rrne.t plead.r' l-.r I ]ar,e

¶46

afrpL-aring ior responclent Nos.1 to 6 submits that onc Rar.rachandr;r filt:d a cornplaint against the pctitioncrs and as tl.re saicl conr;rlaint re'calc'ci cognizable offences, the respondents-policc have rcgisterccl ;r r-.rsc ir-r crirnc No.738 of 2023 for the offerrces punishablc trnc]e r secti<rrrs 347,420,468,478 and 560 of Ipc ancl the same is pc.cling for i,vestigation. Learned Assistant Government preader furthcr subrnits that only for the purpose of investigation into thc said crin'rc, the respondents-police have summoned the petitioners to the prolicc statiou.

¶47

In view of the above submissions, this Court clecrns it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing resp..de.t Nos.5 and 6 not to interfere with the civil rights of the petitioners. Hor.t,ever, liberty is granted to the respondents-poliee to p.rrocgs4 witir thc investigation in Crime No.738 of 2023 in accordance with lau,

¶48

¶49

¶50

With tht'abor.t'(rbsr'rt',rtion, this writ pctitiol is disposecl

¶51

of. No ordcr ns to costs

¶52

As a scquel tlrr:r-cto, nt iscrtllan,,o us petitiolls, ii any, prp11ji11g

¶53

shall stand closcrl

¶54

//rRUE copy7,

¶55

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTAryIREGISTRAR .rffi$1r oFFtcER

¶56

¶57

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary' Lawand Order Department' Secretariat Building'} Hvderabad. oniSon,ru,. 2. rtJ'i"oii.^..io""r. 9l f!l:';t?v"?if zon". J. The Deputv^{commtss oner} '.;;ib;:i;., t ;;-hipur Division. 4. 5. +[: ttJ!:J^{t 3?tsH'"'6''f,E Y]'i,Y'iJ; ; a;' ifr E st'i" oiie' ansa na at} Hvderabad [OUT] tt. 3L: CtT;^{i"ni'rvrnr'rocr'r YA voLIM I NE N l' Advocate [oPUc]} 7. Two CD^CoPies BM GJP .Y \

ji J

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 O11012023

ORDER

WP.No.18858 of 2023

B IHE S tA i.-
o
)' (f.
7c
.J
0 3 ilou 202, tz
c
,<br>4.,
-.j l!:!c I ta(,)
)*

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

Sri Puralasetty Sreedhar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Puralasetty Sreedhar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkateswara Theatre, Vs Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary

Dr .M .Saarah Sandliya @ Madhavi Latha Vs The State Of Telangana

Sensation Sunshine, Vs State of Telangana

B. R. Subhash Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Godishala Rajendar Vs The State of Telangana

Khaleel Ur Rahman Vs The State of Telangana