Allowed

P.Harinath Reddy v. Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others

Telangana HC13 Aug 2025WP/17254/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court restrained the police from interfering in a civil dispute regarding an audit shortage amount alleged against the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed, directing that police presence in such civil matters is outside official duties.

What did the court decide?

Restraint imposed on Respondent No. 2 (SHO) from interfering in the civil dispute regarding the audit shortage amount; appearance of petitioner to be secured only through specific written notice.

P.Harinath Reddy Vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and 2… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

.13217 1

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TU,KARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17254 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

P.Harinath Reddy, S/o. Tirupathi Reddy, aged 28 years, Occ: Presently Unemployee, Previously worked as Stores lt/anager, GD Retail (A Unit of l\tly Car Pune Pvt. Ltd.), Fl/o H.No.90/2/C/5, Madhapur, Appollo Medical Shop, Building Hytch City, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Station House Officer, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, Seriligampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶13

The Area Sales Manager (ASM), GD Retail (A Unit of My Car Pune P\i,t. Ltd.), Reebok Store, Plot No. 90, S.No. 305 to 309, Municipal H.No. 2-105l5lClF2 and F3, Chandanagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 50, T.S.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitulion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more fully one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in harassing the petitioner herein by calling him to the Police Station repeatedly with the connivance of the 3rd respondent herein for recovery of audit shortage amount of Rs. 2,28,7531-(Rupees two lakhs twenty eight thousand seven hundred and fifty three only) as biased, without^{jurisdiction,} illegal and capricious and ,consequently^{direct the 2nd respondenthereinnot to call the petitionerto the} Police Station at the instant of the 3rd respondent herein for recovery of the

¶16

aforesaid amount hereinafter, which is falls under civrl^{d i:;pute, in the endsof} justice.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016^(W PMP. NO: 21227 OF 2016

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in th,l circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Cor. rt may be^pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein not to take any coercl^ve steps against the petitioner herein at the instance of the 3rd respondent hr:,r ein, pending disposal of the above WP No. of 2016.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GADE VENKATESWARA RAO^{(NoNEAPPEARED)}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l & 2: SRI R.LAXMIKANTt{ REDDY, AGP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.17254 OF 2016

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This W'rit Petition is filcd under Article 226 of Constitulion of India sceking the following relief/s:-

¶26

". . . to issue a Writ, order or dfuecuon more fully one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus decladng the action of thc 2"d respondent herein in harassing the peutioncr hcrcin by calling him to the Police Station repeatcdly with the connivance of the 3'd tespondent hcrcin fot rcco.ery of audit shortasc amount of Rs. 2,28,753/-(RuPees t\r'o lakhs twenq'eight thousand seven hundrcd and fiftv three onl1) as biascd, u,rthout^{jurisdiction,} illcgal atid capricious and^consequently dircct the 2"d respondcnt hcrcin not to call the pctitroner to the Police Station at the instant of the 3'd tcspondent herein fot rccovery of the aforcsaid amount heteina[ter, which is [al]s under civil disputc, in the ends of^justice and pass such othet otdet or otders."

¶27

None appeared on behaif of the petitioner.

¶28

I have l.rcard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, iearned Assistant

¶29

Government Pleader for Home appeadng for respondent^Nos.1 and,2.

¶30

The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for^Flome submitted that the respondent police did flot, at any^{point, interfere} with or harass the petitioner in relation to the recovery of^the alleged audit shortage amouflt. He further contended^{that the}

petition merclv makcs a bald assertion without [urnishing any

¶35

specific particulars or supporting details. Accordinr311,, it was urged that the relicf sought ir.r the petition is devoid of rrcr-it and is liable to be dismissecl

¶36

I have perused thc materials on record.

¶37

The petitioner, in his affidavit, stared thar ,tr 26.05.201.6,he rcccived a phorre call from respondent No.2 sunrmoning him to appear at the policc station on 27.05.2016. In r:ompliance, rhe petitioner appeared before respondent No.2, rvlrc, rhen inforrned him of the alleged due amounr as re flected in tl L. recor.ery letter datcd 16.02.2016. The pcririorrcr rhereupon rc!url:.rcd respondenr

¶38

No.2 to convev to the complainant/respondent |.1.i.3 that the said amount be adjusted from his Provident Fund rlucs, torvards his liabilirr, of 509'6, contending that there was no rrcqligence on his part as he had not becn preserrt in the shop at tle relevant time.

¶39

Howevet, on 28.05.2016, respondcnt No.2 ag;ain called the

¶40

petitioner, insisted that he discharge the entire allr:q 3d amount, and

¶41

allegedly threatcned hirn with dire cor-rsequencer:;. lr was firrther

¶42

¶43

asserted that^respondent No.2^{warned that, shouldthe balance not}

¶44

¶45

be paid, false criminal cases would be foisted against the petitioner, resuking in his incarceration.^'Ihese assertions^indicatcthat rcspondent No.2 cngaged in acts^{amounting to-parricipation in thc} recovery of the shortage amount, a^{rr-.atterwhich is clearly outside} the scope of his lawful responsibil,itics^{and duties.}

¶46

Acct>rdinglv, it is lound appropdate to^{direct the respondent}

¶47

No.2, not to intcrfere in what is^{essentiallya civil dispute,nor hc} shall render any assistance in the^recovery of^{the alleged shortagc} amounts. Furthcrmore, the involvement^{of respondent No.2 in a} civil dispute, under the guise of pending criminai^proccedings, would Iikcwisc lall outside the ambit of^{his official duties.} 'I'herefore, respondcnt No.2 is hereby restrained from undertaking any acrivity that ',vould invoh.e hirrr in the^{recoveryo[ amounts} pertairung to a civil dispute.^{If,however,the presenceof the} pedrioner is genuinely required for^{the purposesof investigationin} any lawful proceedings, such appearance^{shall only be securcd} through the issuance of a written^{noticespeci$ting the} Purpose, date, and rirne schcdule in clear^{and specific terrns.}

¶48

¶49

\X,ith the abovc dilection, this u,rit petition i, allou,'ed.^-fhcre

¶50

shall bc no ordcl as to costs.

¶51

Nlisccllancous Pctitions, pending if 2n1,, shall :rtancl closed.

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

SD/. AlH .s. GOWRI SHANKAR As;IbTANT REGISTRAR

(

CTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, T.S\ Sr:cretariat,^Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶59

2 The Station House Officer, Chandanagar Polict: Station,^Cyberabad, Seriligampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderab,ad,^T.S.

¶60

3 One CC to SRI GADE VENKATESWARA RAO, Advor;i'te [OPUC]

¶61

4 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the^liitate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶62

5 Two CD Copies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1310812025

z g sFl, ll025 I
O! I
-). /,
.: - ,',/
ri...-
,,//

¶68

ORDER

¶69

WP.No.17254 of 2016

¶70

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

1 <br>

P.Harinath Reddy v. Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Harinath Reddy v. Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others

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

S.P. Satish. Vs The State of Telangana.

E.Sudarshan Vs The State of Telangana

G. Ramana Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Prl. Secretary

Madaar Sangishetty Vs The State of Telangana

Kurma Bheemaiah, Adilabad Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 2 Ors.

Aravind Patel S/o Narayanabhai Patel Vs State of Telangana