Disposed

Islavath Shakru, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Oct 2023WP/20833/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the Station House Officer for interfering in a civil property dispute and threatening criminal action without following due process. The court observed that the police had not interfered with civil disputes and no complaint had been lodged. Consequently, the court directed the police officer not to interfere with the civil dispute and

What did the court decide?

Directed the Station House Officer not to interfere with the civil dispute and to follow Section 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar guidelines if investigation is required.

Islavath Shakru, Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s61

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:20833 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

lslavath Shakru, S/o. Dasya, Aged. 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Prashanthpuri Thanda , H/o Gollapally village of Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary(Home), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

Superintend of Police, Nalgonda, District Nalgonda.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Chinatapally Police station, Chintapally, District Nalgonda.

¶15

Tulasi Ratna kumari, Wo. Tulasi Sampath kumar, Age. 42 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o.H.No.7-45l11, Chintapally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶16

Seetha Shiva Kumar, S/o. Venkataiah Age. 19 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-76, Vinjamooru Village of Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3'd respondent interfering in Civil Disputes pending lnjunction order in l.A.No.39 of 2023 in O.S.No.40 of 2023 against the 4 and 5 respondents on the file of Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge at Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, threatening the petitioner to settle the said Civil Disputes pending, otherwise will be implicated in the several criminal cases, on d1.27.O7.2023 came to suit scheduled^property by

¶19

the 3'd respondent without following due^process of law, lrighhandedly and misusing his official power, which is illegal and Arl)itrary, Lln constitutional, violation of the princit,le of natural^justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC^praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in sr-^pport of the^petition, the High Courl may l:e^pleased to Direct the 3'd respondent not to interfere in Civil Disputes^pending lnjurrction order in l.A.No.39 of 2023 in^().S.No.40 of 2023 againstthe4anc 5 respc ndonts on thefile of Hon'ble Additiona I Junior Civil Judge, at Devarakonda, lrlalgonda District, threatening the petitk)ner to settle the said Civil Disputers^pendirg, otherurise will be implicated in the several criminal cases, on d1.27.07.i'.0:23 came to suit scheduled property by the 3rd respondent without follorrying cu() process of law, pending disposal of tl'e main Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petit oner: SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJALi\

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4 and 5: NONE APPEARED

¶25

The Court made the lollowing: ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.2O833 ol 2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶30

India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:

¶31

"...fo lssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Nandamus, declaring the action of the 3'd respondent interfering in Civil Disputes pending Injunction order in LA.No.39 of 202i in O.S.No.4O of 2023 against the 4 & 5 respondents on the file of Hon'ble Additional lunior Civil ludge at Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, threatening the petitioner to settle the said Civil Disputes pending, otherwise will be implicated in the several criminal cases, on dt,27.07,2023 came to suit scheduled property by the f respondent without fottowing due process of law, highhandedly and misusing his official^power, which is illegal and Arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of the principle of natural justice..,"

¶32

2, The petitioner claims to be owner and^possessor oF House/Mulgi bearing No.1-1-D33, admeasuring BB sq.yards in Sy.No.113, situated at the outskirts of Prashanthpuri Thanda H/o.Gollapally Kurmed Village, Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is further case of the petitioner that he entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No.4 For disposal of the said property and respondent No.4 paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and promised to pay the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/at the time of registration and issued a cheque bearing

¶33

::2:l

¶34

No.616177 drawn on SBI, Chinthapally Branch and also deposited original documents bearing Nos.5Ct41/2011 and 7243/2O2L but respondent No.4 did not turn up to comply the ternrs and ':onditions of the agreement of sale trn J failed to^pay the baiancer sale consideration. Suppressirg the said fact, the respondent No.4 lodged a complaint dated 19.06.202.2 on the file of responde nt No.3 stating that while she was^going to Kurmed from Chintlrapally village, she lost her original l,lncl document No,7243/2021 and requested to issue a certificat€.^)ursuant to the said at,plication, the respondent No.i'! issued a certificate dated 06.1C.2022 stating that efforts are made l:o trace the said document but not traced and in future also, there is no hope of tracing out^Ihe said missing certificate. The^petitiorrer claims that in fact the c riginal documents submitted by the re:;pondent No.3 are in his^(ustody. It is further case of tne^p€titioner that he instituted a suit vide O.S.No.40 of 2023 on the lil(: 01'Additional lunior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, against the r,sspondent No.4 and the sai( Court also^granted ad interim injunction vide order dated 14.0: .2023 in LA.No.39/2023. Durng^perrdercy of the said suit, lhe respondent No.4 also in:;titut€:d a suit vide O.S.No.166 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Devarakond,r and the same is pending for ad.lurJication. It is

¶35

¶36

further case of the petitioner that at the instance of respondent Nos.4 and 5, the respondent No.3 is frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station and forcing the petitioner to enter into settlement with respondent Nos.4 and 5 as per the terms dictated by them.

¶37

This Court vide order dated 03,08.2023 directed the petitioner to take out personal notice to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 by RPAD and file^proof of service. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has taken out personal notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 and filed proof of service, which reveals that the notices sent to respondent Nos.4 and 5 are served. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent No.3 is not having any power or authority to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in any manner and the said action on the^part of the respondent No.3 amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

¶40

¶41

On lhe other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that the police have not interfer€d with the civil disputes br:tween the^petitioner and the rersponrJent Nos.4 and 5 in any marrner. It is further submitted that eitfrer of' the^parties to the wrrt petition, have not filed any ccmplaint. If any complaint i; filed and if the same reveals cognizable offence, the police will register a case and conduct inves:igation, in accordance with lar'.

¶42

In vi,:w of the above submissions, this^(loL rt deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3 not to inl:erfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 and.i in any manner, except in acrordancr: n,ith law. If the presenr:e of the petitioner is require(l for ttre purpose of investigatior'r, the respondent No.3 is at liberty to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41A Cr.F'.(l arrd also the guidelines i:;sued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihal before proceeding with nvesligation.

¶43