Dismissed

Ch. Vinay v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Mar 2024WP/5595/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court addressed a plea for non-interference in matrimonial disputes. The court directed police not to mediate or interfere in the marital discord unless the spouse lodged a complaint of a cognizable offence triggering appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police not to interfere with the matrimonial dispute unless the complaint by the wife discloses a cognizable offence.

Ch. Vinay Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAYOF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND IWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5595 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch. Vinay, S/o Ch. Lakshman Rao, aged about 32 years, Occ ; Private Employee, Rl/o.H.No. 4-72, Raghunadhapalem Village Khammam District.

¶9

Sri Ch. Lakshman Rao, S/o aged 58 years, Occ ; Private emplolee, Rl/o.H.No.4-72, Raghunadhapalem Village Khammam District.

¶10

Smt. Ch. Srilakshmi, W/o Ch. Lakshman Rao, aged 52 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o.H.No. 4-72, Raghunadhapalem Village, Khammam District.

¶11

.....PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Director General of Police, Telangana State Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy, Sanga Reddy District.

¶16

The Circle lnspector of Police, Ameenpur Police Station, Sanga Reddy District.

¶17

The Sub lnspector of Police, Ameenpur police Station, Sangareddy District.

¶18

Ch.Chandana, W/o Ch. Vinay, aged 27 years, Occ ,. Housewife, R/o.H.No.36.1/1 1, Rajender Reddynagar Colony Bandamkommu, Chandanagar, Hyderabad.

¶19

.....RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition Under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of^'Mandamus' declaring the action of the respondents-4 and 5 in regularly calling the petitioners to the police station from 121212024 onwards and harassing the petitioners and asking the petitioner to settle the martial dtspute and forcing the

¶21

petitioners to agree for the said dictates of the Police as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, malafide, u nconstitutional, contrary to law and against principles of natural iustice and consequently direct the respondents-4 and 5 and not to call the petitioners regularly to the police station and not to harass the petitioners in the interest of^justice.

¶22

|.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition Under Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents-4 & 5 not to call the petitioners regularly to the police station and not to harass the petitioners in the interest of^justice pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.RAMAKRISHNA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : AGP FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : -

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V. BHASI(AR REDDY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.5595 OF 2o24

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

.^{This writPetition, under Article 226 ofthe}

¶32

Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶33

"...to issue writ, order or direction more^particularl) one in the natur€ of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in regularty calling^the petitioners to the police station from L2.O2.2O24 onwards and harassing the petitioners and asking the petitioner^to settle the marital dispute and forcing the^{petitionersto} agree for the said dictates of the^police, as illegal, arbitran', unjust, unreasonable, malafide, unconstitutional,^contrary to law and atainst the principles of natural^{justice and} consequently direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and not^to catl the petitioners regularly to the^police station and not^to harass the petitioners...'

¶34

Heard leamed counsel for the petitloners,

¶35

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing

¶36

for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and perused the record

¶37

Respondent No.6 is wife and petitioner Nos.2 arld 3 are parents of petitioner No. I . The marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with respondent No.6 on 09.06.2022 at Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. as^per Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock petitioner No. I conceived. Thereafter, disputes arose bet'uveen pelitioner No.l and respondent No.6. The case of the

¶38

¶39

petitioners is that without^registering any^{case against} them at the instance of respondent.No.6,^{respondentNos.4} and 5 are frequently summoning the^{petitionersto police} station and conhning them for hours^{togetherand forcing} them to enter into settlement/compromise^{with respondent} No.6.

¶40

4 . Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for} Home, on instructions,^{would submitthat respondentNo.6} has lodged a complaint^{against petitioners and acting on} the said cornplaint, respondent^{No.5 summoned the} petitioners to police station and^{advised them for family} counselling. Except^{advising the petitioners for family} counselling, respondent^{No.5 is not interfering with the} famil1. disputes^{betu'een the petitionersal1d respondent} No.6, in an-v manner.

¶41

In vrerv of said submissions,^{this Court deemsit} appropriate to^{dispose of the Writ Petitiondirecting} respondent Nos.4^and 5^{not tointerfere withthe} matrimonial disputes between the^petitioner No.1 and respondent No.6 in an-y- manner and if the contents of

¶42

¶43

complaint lodged by respondent No.6 reveal commission of cognizable offence, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to 1n take appropriate action against the petitioners, accordance with law

¶44

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is

¶45

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

Miscellarreous petitions if any, pending in this Writ

¶47

Petition shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/- T. VIJAY KUMAR ASSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, Home Department^{Secretariat, State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad.

¶53

The Director General of Police,^{Telangana StateLakdikapool, Hyderabad} 3. The Superintendent of^{Police, Sangareddy,Sanga ReddyDistricl} 4. The Circle lnspector of Police, Ameenpur^{Police Station, Sanga Reddy} District.

¶54

The Sub lnspector of Police, Ameenpur^{policeStation,Sangareddy District.}

¶55

Two CCs to GP For Home, High^{Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶56

7 Ohe CC to Sri D.Ramakrishna, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

B Two CD Copies

-^GJP X.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0110312024

27 wv nn
\ .i,
'. 1-,

ORDER

WP.No.5595 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

%'u
N

Ch. Vinay v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Vinay 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

Nimmagalla Arjun Vs The State of Telangana

Nimmagalla Arjun Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sahasra Vs The State of Telangana

Kalinga Krishna Chathan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Hameed Vs The State of Telangana

B.Madhusudhan Rao Vs The State of Telangana