Dismissed

Perelli Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Oct 2023WP/25238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition alleging illegal detention and use of third-degree methods by police officers was dismissed as the petitioner is a habitual offender with multiple pending criminal cases. The court found the allegations person to be incorrect.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition seeking declaration of illegal detention and direction to punish police officers was dismissed.

Perelli Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

I i i l I

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25na oF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Perelli Praveen Kumar, S/o^Veeraswamy, aged about 34 years, Occ; Business, Fl,/o lndira Nagar Khammam City.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The state of relangana, rep. By its principar secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director Generar of^porice, state of rerangana, office at Lakdikapoor, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Deputy lnspector General, Warangal Zone, Warangal.

¶15

+. [9m9il Anjaneyulu, Asst. Commissioner of police Khammam, Khammam District.

¶16

Venkanna Babu, circle lnspector of police Khammam Urban police station, Khammam.

¶17

Kumaraswamy, sub-rnspector of porice Khammam Urban porice station, Khammam.

¶18

Ravi, S_ub-lnspector of^police, Khammam Urban police Station, Khammam, presently working at Konijerla police Station, Khammam Distriit.

¶19

B. Rangaiah, Head Constable, Khammam Urban police Station, Khammam.

¶20

Haridas, Constable-Writer, Khammam Urban police Station, Khammam.

¶21

'1 0. T Gopi, Circle lnspector of police, Khammam ll Town police Station Khammam, now attached to the Office of the Commissioner. Khammam.

¶22

1 1. Kutumbaka Ramesh arias Basura, Ramesh, s/o not known, aqed 5s vears_ occ. Business, R/o H.No. 15-1-493, Road No.5, Xaviraj fVaiiikn;;,{r;;' City.

¶23

I I l I I I

¶24

12 P Janaki Devi, W/o Kutumbaka Ramesh, R/o.H.No.15_1-493, Road No.5, Kaviraj Nagar Khammam City.

¶25

.....RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition Under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of [\rrandamus, to decrare the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in taking action against Respondent Nos.s to 1o herein who iregary detained the petitioner and used third degree methods by demanding to withdraw the suit o'S No'37/2020 0n the fire of the Junior civir Judge, at Khammam and arso the w.p.No. 'lgg78 of 2020 .therwrse threatening to initiate p.D. Act and ki, him and his famiry members in encounter, inspite of the written representation dated 1B-9'2o21 , as being ilegar, arbitrary and u nconstitutionar and consequenuy direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to act upon the compraint dated 1 8-g-2021 and punish the Respondent Nos.4 to .1 0 incruding the unofficial respondents in accordance with Law.

¶27

l.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶28

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to consider and take appropriate action against the Respondent Nos.4 to 1o pursuant to the written representation dated 18.9.2021 , pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶29

Counset for the petitioner : SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 1O : Gp FOR HOME

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.11 & 12 : __

¶32

The Court made the following ORDER

¶33

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.25238 of 2O2l

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This writ petition rs filed secking tl-rc follou,ing relief

¶37

".-.-.-lo issue an appropriate Wnt, Order ot Directiou. ntore partiaiarlg one in the nqture of Wr of hlturdanus, l.o^(Teclare Lhe aclion of lhe Respondenl -l{o-s.2 and -l^ltc'r ein it tQkitlg action aqainst Respondetlt ruo.s.4 lo 1O |ttt,trt tulut iLk:qully detained the pctitioner ctnd usetl Lhtrd dtttrt'ct nrctlrcds bt1 demanding to uithdrau.) the suit O S No -f 7/.)() )O ort the lilc of the Junior Crul Judge, Khammarn cttxL also Il!.P.No 19878 of 2020 otheru)tse threatcntng to inttiat? P.D A(r LLrtd kill htm ond his Jamilg mentbers in encounter, trL sptl,' oJ' tllc uriten representation dt.18.09.2O21, as bt'rtLLl illcglrtl. orbttrartl an<l unconstitutiotTal and consequentLLl di^t cct th<'^{t t'} :;poncl!^t1 ! - 2 and 3 herein lo dct upon the conltlrtinl dl^I S 09.2021 ^tos ond punish the Respondent Nos 4 to l0 incluthrtg the urtollicial respondents in accordance uith Lau;, attd pass such other reliefs...."

¶38

The case ol the petitioncr is that he belongs to

¶39

Scheduled Caste Community and a landless^{poor person} and he has constructed a small house with G.l. Sheet roof in Plot No.3 in Sy.No.94 of Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, which is comprising 9O square yards and the said land was assigned to him by the Government and to that effect, the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer issued patta uide Proceedings No.B/177312OO4 dated 25.10.2004 and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and also residing therein along with his family members. It^{is the}

¶40

¶41

( vtllt. .l \ p 251lti l0l I

¶42

furthcr cirse ol the^{petitror-rer that on29 'l22019} '

¶43

responderr t Nos¹ 1 ttnd,^{12 without the re being arry right or} titlc o,cr thc subjccr^{propertywent tohis Ltousc arld} threatcnccl to dispossess^{him, as sucl-r, he was constrait-rcd} to filc O.S.No.37 of^{2O2Oon the file of the Junior Civil} Judgc (trxcise). Khammam,^{seeking perpetual injunction} and erlso lilcd W.P.No.19878^{of 2020,when the respondents} threatenc(l thc^petitioner to^{foist false casesunder thcr} provisior-ts of P.D. Act.

¶44

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home has} submitterl that the^{petitionerwas involvedin as manyas 25} criminal cerses and^out of^{the same, he was convictedin 3} cases uide Crime Nos.l4^{of 2005, 90 of 2O05 and 130 of} 2O2O. Learned Assistant Government^{Pleaderhas further} submitted that out of^{remaining22 cases, 20 cases are} pending for trial and two cases^{are at the stage of} investigation. Learned Assistant^{Government Pleader has} lurther submitted that taking^{into consideration that the} petitioner is ar-r habitual offender, rowdy^{sheet is being} maintained against him lly the^{respondents-police,} therefore, the allegation that^{the police are detaining the}

¶45

¶46

t vllR.^l rrp )i)lti^)trll

¶47

petitioner^{in the poiicestation' usingthird degrec methods} and^{forcing the petitioner to withdraw O S'No'll7 of 2020} and^{W.P.No'19878 of 2O2O is absolutely incorrcctand the} said^{allcgations are inventedto rnaintain this u'rit petition} only.

¶48

In view^{of the said sr-rbmissions'this Court is not} inclined^{to grant any relief to the petitioner'}

¶49

Accordingly'^{the Writ Petition is dismissed No costs'} 6. As a^{sequel'the miscellaneouspe titions pending' if}

¶50

any,^{shall stand closed'}

¶51

//TRUE^COPY'/

¶52

SD/.^{P PADMAN+\REA,EFRRX} @ SECTION^OFFICER

¶53

to n -*., CCs to GP For Home' High Court for^{the State of Telanganaat}

¶54

" r-rvJerabad. [OUTI akar Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 2. Ohe^{CCto Sri Karunr} 3. Two^{CD CoPtes}

¶55

SA \

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211012023

ORDER

WP.No.25238 ot 2021

4::==
.., , 1t\E S 'Al€
C,
(:: Y,<br>-)
,a)
0 7 il0t] 2023
\ :i
..

DISN,IISSING'THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

@ .Y $

Perelli Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perelli Praveen Kumar 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

K. Shyam Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Kurapati Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Puri Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Chand Pasha S/o Mohd Abdul Khader Vs The Government of Telangana

Gandra Archana Vs The State of Telangana

Sitapuram Power Limited, Vs Executive Engineer