Dismissed

Smt. V.V.S.N. Lakshmi Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Oct 2023WP/20076/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a businesswoman challenging illegal detention and harassment by police personnel. The Court upheld the authority's conclusion that the petitioners' allegations were baseless based on an enquiry report, thus disposing of the matter without costs.

What did the court decide?

The request for a writ of Mandamus directed against Respondents Nos. 2 to 11 was dismissed with the prayer for directions to preserve CCTV footage also dismissed.

Smt. V.V.S.N. Lakshmi Kumari Vs The State of Telangana — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

I,4ONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH^DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.^{BHASKAR REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20076 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. V.V.S.N. Lakshmi^{Kumari,W/o. V. SureshKumar, Aged about years,} Occ. Business - Proprietor of^{lr,4/sLakshmi Agencies,R/o- 143' MlG,} Balajinagar, 2nd Floor, Kukatpally,^{Hyderabad- 72-}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its PrincipalSecretary, HomeDepartment'} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Director General of^{Police,Telangana State, Hyderabad.}

¶14

3 The Commissioner of Police,^{HyderabadCity, Banjara Hills' Hyderabad.}

¶15

4 The Dy. Commissioner of^{Police,NorthZone, Hyderabad.}

¶16

Assistant Commissioner of^{Police, Gopalpuram,WestMarredpally,} Secunderabad.

¶17

The Station of Ofticer, Mahankali^{Police Station,Secunderabad.}

¶18

P. Rambabu, S/o. Not^Know to^{Petitioner, Aged about Not Known,Occ.Sub-} lnspector of Police, Mahankali^{Police Station,Secunderabad.}

¶19

B. Nimkar Naresh Kumar,^{S/o. Not Knowto Petitioner, Aged aboutNot Known,} Occ. Advocate, Fl/o. H.No.1-'l^{-4, Neemkar Sadan,Jawahar Nagar,} Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶20

K L N Srikanth, S/o. Not^{Know to Petitioner,Aged about Not Known' Occ.} Emolovee at IVI/s. Aarvee^{t\ilercantiles,O/o. M/s. AarveeMercantiles'Shop} t to.'S-+'-aglg, Al-Karim Trade Centre,^{M. G. Road,Ranigunj, Secunderabad.}

¶21

'10. Privam Aqarvval, S/o Not Known to Petitioner, Aged about Not Known, Occ. Bu3iness:O/o. M/s. Aarvee^{l\4ercantiles, Shop No.5-4-89/9, Al-Karim Trade} Centre, Ivl. G. Road, Ranigunj,^{Secunderabad.}

¶22

1 1. Prakash Garg, S/o. Not Known^{to Petitioner,Agedabout Not Known, Occ} Business, R/6. M/s. Aarvee^{Mercantiles,ShopNo.5-4-89/9, Al-Karim Trade} Centre, M. G. Road, Ranigunj,^{Secunderabad.}

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Artide 226 of the Constitution of lndia^prraying that in the circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to^{issuewrit, orderor direction,more particularlyone in the form of writof} Mandamus,^{questioningthe action of RespondentsmoreparticularlyRespondent} Nos.3^{to 5 in not taking any action in pursuance to the petitioner complaint Dated} 0310512023^{and0610512023 against the Respondent Nos,7to 11 for illegal} detention,^{misuse of officialduty, harassmentunder the influenceof Respondent} Nos.8^{to'l 1 for settlement of civil dispute is illegal, arbitraryand against to thelaw} and^{also in violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constituton of lndian and} consequently^{directthe Respondent No.2 to 5 to take immediate action against the} respondent^{Nos.7to 11, preserve the CCTV footages of [t4ahankaliPolice Station,} Hyderabad,^{dated 0610212023 from time 9.30 Atvl to'1 1.00Plvl.for futureenquiry,} which^{clearly demonstrates that illegalacts of the Respondent Nos.7to 1 1.}

¶25

IA NO^{10F 2023}

¶26

Petition under^{Section1 51 CPC prayingthat in the circunrstances} statedⁱⁿ the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto direct} the respondent^{Nos.2to 5 to cal! for CCTV footages of ft4ahankaliPolice Station,} Hyderabad,^{dated0610212023 from time 9.30 AN/ to 11.00 PIr4 and preservethe} same^{for future enquiry, pending disposalof this writ petition, in the interest of} justice.

¶27

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI SRIDHARLONKALA}

¶28

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FORHOME}

¶29

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo.7 :--}

¶30

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.8:SRI KHAJA MOHIUDDIN}

¶31

Counsel^{for the Respondent No.9 to 11: SRI NARESH KUMAR NEEMKAR} The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶33

WRIT PETTTION NO.2O 076 0F 2023

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Thc writ petition is fitcrl seeking following relief:

¶36

"....-lo is-stle utril. orrler or tlirectlon more parlicularlg one in the fonn of uit ol MantlcLmus questioning the aclton of Respondents more purticuktrlq Respondent N'os. 3 to S in not tctkin.cl any actiort irt pursLL.tTce to the petitioner compraint Dated O3/ 05/ 2023 cutd 06/ 05/ 2O23 agajnst the Respondent Nos. 7 to 1l Jor ittegal cLeLention ,riru.e o1 offcrul dutA harassnlent under tle inJluence of Respondent Nos'.'g to l1 Jbr settlement oJ'ciutl dLspute ls i egal arbitrary ancl against to th.e lau and also irt uiolatiort of Afticle 14 and 1 9 oJ the Constitution of Indian and consequently direct the Respon.lent No 2 to 5 to take irnrnediate .tction against the respondent Nos. 7 _Lo -1 1 preserue the CC1,V footages of Mahankali police Stcttion Hgderabad dated 06/ o2,t 2023 from time 9 3o AM to I I 00 pM Jor future enquiry u.hich clear[r.1 demonstrates that ilk:gat acts olthe Responclcnt N(,s. 7 to 11.....-,,

¶37

The petitioner is cloing business of electrical and electronic goocls. It is thc casc of the petitioner that during the course of his busir.ress, on 06.02.2023, tl-re police personnel came to his residence and forcibly taken the petitioner and Iler husband to the police station stating that there are two cases registered against them unc'rer sections 406 and 420 of rpC. It is the further case of trre petitio,er tl-ra t the unofficiar respondents trespassed into her house ancl threatened with clire consequences and

¶38

¶39

insistccl to repav the amounis immeclitrtely,^n,hich ne.ccssiatecl her' to lodge a complaini before respondeut No.3 to take actiou agaiust responclcnt Nos.7 to 11. It is not thc c.tst'of the petitiorrer that the respondellts-police har''e issuccl atr1, trtttice corttcmPlarted under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C or thc guiclclirrcs issLrc-rl by^thc Hon'ble Supreme Court, It is the or.rl1, case of thc pctitioner that at the instigation of lespondent Nos.7 to 1t, the rcsfronclentspoiice have illegally confined thern for hours bgether'

¶40

A counter affidavit has becu fitecl by resl-rontlent No.4 stating that acting on the referrcd cor.nplaint by the XI ACi\4M, Secunderabcl ttide Dis No.13/XI/ACMIvl/Sec'bail, clated 03.01.2023, the respondents-police have registcrecl a ctrsc in Crime No.09 of 2023 under Sectior-rs 406 ancl 420 of IPC. It is further stated that as per thc directions issued by the Comnrissioner of Police, an enquiry has been conductecl by respondent No.4 and have submittecl a report stating that the allegations rlade ir-r tl.re complaint are baseless and tl-rere is no supportir-rg eviclence 4. In view of the report, learned counsel for the respondents vel.remently contended that the enquiry being conducted bv

¶41

¶42

respondent No.,{ has rove.trlecj that therc is r.r o r.vic.Jence and the present writ pc'titio, firecr is misconcei'err a'cr the -sernre is Iiabre to be clisrnisseci

¶43

In view of the counier afiiclavit being filecl Lr-y respondent No.4 stating that the responclen ts_police have rc.gistered a case acting on the referrecl complaint anrl also followed clue procec-lure uncler Section 4t_A of Cr.p.C arrrr.l the alkgations lerrelecl by thc petitioner are false and basclerss, thc. writ p€.tition filed is clevoid of merits ancl is dismissecl, accorclingly. No orcler as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel thcreto, mi-scc[aneou-s petitions, if any/

¶45

pending sl.rali stand closecl.

¶46

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTADII REGISTRAR seHBru oFFtcER

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

To, 1 One CC to Sri Sridhar Lonkala,^Advocate [OPUC] 2 One CC to Sri Naresh Kumar^{Neemkar,Advocate[OPUC]} 3 One CC to Sri Khaja^{tt4ohiuddin,Advocate[OPUC]} 4 Two CCs to GP foi Home,^{HighCourtfor the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabade [OUT]

¶49

5 Two CD Copies

TJ GJP \q-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 611012023

ORDER

WP.No.2O076 of 2023

+-
1v\ c. il 4r€
g A ri li8\l 2!23 o
,I,
*
' Di .)F,, iC i r:C

¶56

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶57

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶58

g c{,t

¶59

\111, \ t, 4\rrll:

Smt. V.V.S.N. Lakshmi Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. V.V.S.N. Lakshmi Kumari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chatla Nagabhushanam Vs Mr.Chandrakumar

Kommineni Chaitanya Krishna Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Masula Swaroopa Vs Shiva Prasad Reddy

Mohd. Shoeb Ali Omrez Vs The State of Telangana

Nandikonda Sobharani Vs The State of Telangana

Chen Reddy Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana