Disposed

Kunduru SubbaRao v. The Government of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023WP/20831/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner alleged police interference in his civil suit. The Court directed the police not to interfere with pending civil disputes but to proceed with the investigation if the petitioner's presence is required.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 3 not to interfere with civil disputes; direction to follow legal procedure if petitioner's presence is needed for investigation.

Kunduru SubbaRao Vs The Government of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20831 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kunduru SubbaRao, S/o. Sangaiah,^Age. 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. K.V.S. Spinning l\r'lill, Nasarlapally^village, Chinthapally lv'landal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Government of Telangana,^rep. by^{its, PrincipalSecretary, Home}

¶12

Department, Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶13

1. The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda,^{District Nalgonda.}

¶14

The Stdtion House Officer, Chinthapally^{Police Station,Nalgonda District} 4. Kumbakondam Ranghanathan,^{S/o. NarasimhaChari, Age. 70 years,Occ.} Business.

¶15

Kumbakonam Vijaya Raghavan^{Ranghanatham, S/o. Ranghanatham,Age.44} years, Occ. Bustness.

¶16

Both are Rl/o. H.No.12-13^{-115215,832mstreet No.11,NearNarayana} Conceptschool,Tarnaka,Secunderabad,Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESpONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therbwith,the High Court may be} pleased to pass an orders, or issue any directions or issue any^{appropriatewrit} more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF^{MANDAMUSdeclaringaction of the} 3rd respondent in interfering in the civil^{disputes in lA No.61of 2023 in OS No.70} of 2023^pending ad interim^injunction on^{the file of JuniorCivil Judge at} Deverakonda, District Nalgonda, which^{is arbitrary illegal,violationof the principles} of natural^justice, violation of Article^{14, 1} I^{AND 21 of the Constitutionof lndia} Consequently direct the 2nd respondent to^{conduct enquiry againstthe 3rd} respondent herein.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under section i 51 cpc prayrng that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 3rd respondent to not to interfere in the civii cJisputes in rA No.61 0f 2023 in os No.70 of 2023 pending ad interim injunction on the file of Junior civir Judge at Deverakonda, District Nargonda, pending disposar or main writ petition in the interest of Justice.

¶21

lA NO: 2 oF 2023

¶22

Between

¶23

K.Ranqhanathan. Sio K.N.Chary, Aged about gO years, Occ. Chartered Accountant.

¶24

Vijaya Raqhavan Ranohanatham. Sio. K. Ranghanalham. Aged about 45 years, Occ. Cha rle red"Acco, niiri^{- .- 'i \vr rvr rurI}

¶25

Both are R/o. H.No.12_13_115215, street No.1.l , Tarnaka, Secunderabad _ 500017, Hyderabad.

¶26

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS. 4 & 5 AND

¶27

Kunduru SubbaRao. S/o Sangaiah. Age. 53 years. Occ. Business. Rt/o. siy,;?,^{.o,nn,ns N/liil. Nasartapiilv irirrrdJ. 6ii,itiuprrrv Mandat,Narsonda}

¶28

...RESPONDENT NO. 1 /PETITIONER

¶29

The Government of Tela

¶30

^^g..pq,fi ";i^{5".;i;;rB??:fli#r,SlJi';r:n} n c i p a r Secreta ry, Home 3. The Superintendenr "t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t The Superintendenr "t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t Superintendenr "t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t "t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t biltri.t Natgonda. 4. The Station The Station Station House onicer, Cninri;;ii;'p;iiJ; silf;in, onicer, Cninri;;ii;'p;iiJ; silf;in, Cnin*ri;;ii;'p;iiJ; silf;in, silf;in,

¶31

The Superintendenr "t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t The Superintendenr "t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t Superintendenr "t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t "t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t porice, N'arbolijr', biltri.t biltri.t Natgonda. 4. The Station The Station Station House onicer, Cninri;;ii;'p;iiJ; silf;in, onicer, Cninri;;ii;'p;iiJ; silf;in, Cnin*ri;;ii;'p;iiJ; silf;in, silf;in, Natsonda District

¶32

...RESPONDENT 2TO 4IRESPONDENTS 1 TO 3

¶33

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 vacate the interim order dated O3lOgl2O23 in W.p.No.2 Og31 of 2023.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner: SRt pRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJALA Counset for the Respondent Nos.1 fO a: Cp e<ji'ffbfVf e Lounset torthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5: --

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

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

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.20831of 2O23

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

The petitioner clarms to be the absolute owner and possessor of KVS Spinnirrg Mills Rlt. Ltd situated in Survey No.64, Nagarjuna Sagar l{igh Way, Nasarlapally Village, Chinthapall,v Mandal, Naleonda District. It is the case of the petitioner that tl're said Spinning Mill was leased out to the respondent Nos.,l and 5 by way of registered lease deed bearing No.1501 l2O2l dated 20.01 .2027. However, when disputes arose betrt,een the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5, the petitioner lvas constrained to hle a private complaint under Se ction 200 of Cr.P.C, which was referred unCer Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, and acting upon the referra-l complaint, respondent No.3 registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2022 dated 19.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3O7, 342, 120-8, 420, 468, 471, +64, 472 read with 34 IPC against respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is the further case of petitioner that when no action has been initiated in pursuance of the registration of the said crime, the petitioner was constrained to frle

¶40

¶41

W.P.No.37155 of 2022 seekrng^{to direct responcle nt No.3 to} condr.rct invcstigatron in^{connection with the sr-ridcr irne} and this Court disposed^{of the said writ pctitionclirectit-rg} thc respondcnts^police to^{conduct investigcriona s} expeditiously as^possible, but^{ti1l today no chargesheett.rr} fina1 report has been^{hled by respondentNo.3The} contention of the^{petltioner is thatsit'ice respondl:nt} Nos.4 and 5 are frequently^{interferingu'ith his possession} over the subject^{property,asuit was il-rstiLlltedvide} O.S.No.70 ol 2023 seeking^{perpetualinjunctionon the llle} ol Junior Civil Jude,^{Deverakonda,ar-rd the said Court} granted ad interim injunction in^{favour of the petitioncr} vide I.A.No.6l of 2023 daLed28.02.2023.

¶42

The grievance of the^{petitioner in this writ petition is} that pending adjudication of the^{said suit, at the instance} of respondent Nos.4 and 5,^{respondentNo-3 is interfering} with the civil rights of the^{petitionerand threatening him to} settle the civil disputes with^{respondent Nos.4 and 5 as per} the terms dictated bY them.

¶43

A counter alfidavit has^{been filed onbehalfof} respondent Nos.4 and 5 inter alla stating^{that by virtrle of}

¶44

I I

¶45

the lease deed executed irr thetl^{lavour. thev are in} posscssion of thc subject proport.v and tnoreovcr,^the agrecment/MoU entered into betrvr:t:tr the^{partiescontains} an arbitration clausc, but tl-rc pctitioncr, instcad^of invoking the arbitration clause itr order to^{resolve the} disputes, has foisted false cascs as^rrrell as^civil suit^against respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is furthcr^{state(l that the suit} instituted by the pctitiortcr is ttot mzrirltainable^aud respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed zrn application under^Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996^{and the} same is pending. It is also stated that thc^{petitioner only} with a view to protract the litigation has filed this writ petition stating that the respolldcttts police are interfering with the civil disputes and in fact the respondents^police are conducting investigation only acting on the complaint submitted by the petitioner and they are not interfering with the civil rights of the petitioner in any manner and as such the present writ petition Ftled by the^petitioner is^not rnaintainable and the same is misconceived

¶46

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that acting on the relerral complaint,^the

¶47

I I

¶48

¶49

respondcnts^{policchave registcrecl a case in Crimc No 20 rrt'} 20)2 for the^{offences punishableunder Sections 307 3'l l'} 120 B. 420.^{+68,47),164.472read with 34 IPC:Lgzrirrst} rcspondcnt Nos.4^{and 5 hcrein and thcl' arc colrcluclillq} invcstigatiol-t^{strictlyin accordance with lawHc lirrlhcr} submits that the^{resporldents police havc not irrtcrl-ertd} u,ith the civil drsputes^{between thepetitiorlcrttitrl} rcspondcnt^{Nos.4 altd 5 in any manner'}

¶50

In view of^{the aforesaid submissions, the writ pt'titi"tr} is clisposed of directing^{respondentNo'3 not to inlcrli rc} s'ith the civil disputes^{pendingbetween the petitioncr ti'rd} respondent Nos.4^{and 5 in any mannerand if the presetl(e} ol the petitioner^{is required for the purpose of investigation} in Crime No.2O^{of 2022, lhe respondents policeshall foliou'} the procedure^{as contemplatedunder law'}

¶51

Pending miscellaneous^{applications,ifany, shall}

¶52

stand closed There shall be no order^{as to costs}

¶53

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTAIJI REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// qD SECNON OFFICER

¶54

¶55

1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad Government of Telangana. 2a The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, District Nalgonda.

¶56

The Station House Officer, Chinthapally Police Station, Nalgonda^District. 4 One CC to SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJALA, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana,^at Hyderabad. [OUT] b Two CD Copies PSK. C]JP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711112023

ORDER

WP.No.20831 of 2023

\e STArE
v
o
11ri! ?"fl]
1
co
3J,
o)
\,.-_ t.i'
-;::-'

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶64

q,
t\ ->2

Kunduru SubbaRao v. The Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunduru SubbaRao v. The Government 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

Smt. Rapan Venkata Jyothi Vs State of Telangana

Mr. Mahipatbhai Jesingbhai Dodiya Vs the State of Telangana

Miryala Ramadevi Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Abdul Mannan Vs The State of Telangana

Samala Raj Karate Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Chatla Nagabhushanam Vs The State of Telangana