Cheguri Ramakrishna Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Cheguri Ramakrishna Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Writ Petition was closed (neither the mandamus nor the directional prayers was granted) as the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed on the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home; liberty was granted to respondent No.5 to take action against the petitioner if any complaint is received, strictly in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous applications (I.A.No.1 of 2025) were closed; there shall be no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioner and the defendants in O.S.No.338 of 2023 and summoning the petitioner and his family members to the police station regularly without assigning any reason and without registering an FIR is illegal and arbitrary, warranting a Writ of Mandamus directing them not to interfere in the civil dispute or call the petitioner to the Police Station. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (on instructions, that respondent Nos.3 to 5 nor their subordinates interfered in the civil dispute, and that respondent No.5 would investigate any complaint strictly in accordance with law), the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed and the Writ Petition is closed.

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reveals that the petitioner did not mention the specific date on which respondent Nos.3 and 5 interfered with his possession over the suit schedule property; the allegations are vague and general.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to respondent No.5 (Station House Officer, Moinabad Police Station) to take action against the petitioner if any complaint is received, strictly in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous applications stand closed and there is no order as to costs.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (K. Lakshman, J.; oral order dated 10.07.2025) in W.P.No.19652 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Cheguri Ramakrishna: the petitioner claimed absolute ownership and possession of agricultural land (Ac.0.04 guntas in Sy.No.91/A/2/1/2 and Ac.0.08 guntas in Sy.No.91/A/2/1/1, Himayathnagar village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District), the subject matter of O.S.No.338 of 2023 (Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chevella) where an ad-interim injunction was in force, and alleged that respondent Nos.3 to 5 (ASP Chevella, Circle Inspector Moinabad and SHO Moinabad Police Station) were interfering in that civil dispute at the instance of the defendants and summoning him and his family members to the police station without registering an FIR. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted, on instructions, that no such interference occurred and that respondent No.5 would investigate any complaint strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Observing that the affidavit disclosed no specific date of interference and that the allegations were vague and general, the Court held the petitioner's grievance redressed, closed the Writ Petition with liberty to respondent No.5 to act strictly in accordance with law upon receipt of any complaint, closed pending miscellaneous applications, and made no order as to costs.

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.LAKSHMAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 19652 OF^202s

Between:

Cheguri Ramakrishna, S/o.^{C. Mutyalu, Aged About 57 Years, Occ.Bus]ness,} Rl/o.- D No. 4-79, Pedda Mangalaram^{Village, Moinabad lvlandal,Ranga} Reddy District r.s 500 023.

...PETITIoNER

AND

1 . State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal^{Secretary, Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Superintendent of Police,^{RangaReddy District.}

The Asiistant Superintendent of^{Police, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.}

The Circle Inspector of lt4oinabad,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

The Station H6use Officer, lMoinabad^{Police Station, RangaReddyDistrict}

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe^{Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction^{more particularly one in} the nature of Writ of fMandamus declaring^{the actionof the respondents more} particularly the respondents No.3 to 5 herein interfering in civil^{disputes and} summoning the^petitioner and her^{family membersto the P.S. regularly without} assigning any reason , without registering^{the FIR as illegal and arbitraryand} consequently direct the respondents^{not to interfere in civil disputes and not to} call the petitioners to the Police Stationⁱⁿ the^{interest of justice}

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 direct the respondent No.3 to 5 not to interfere with the petitioners life and liberty in any manner in the interest of justice pending disposal of the Writ Petition

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. PRAVEEN KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

The Court made the following: ORDER

TIIE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN} WRIT PETTTIO^{N No.l 9652 of 2025}

ORAL ORDER:

Heard leamed^{counsel for the petitioner and learned} Assistant Govemment^{Pleader for Home'}

According to the^{petitioner, he is the absolute owner and} possessor of agricultural^{landsadmeasuringAc'0'04 guntas in} Sy.No.91/AJ2ll12^{and Ac.0.08 guntas in Sy'No'91/A/2/1/1'} situated at Himayathnagar^{Vittage,MoinabadMandal'} Rangareddy District.^{When A.Krishna Kumar and others} interfered with^{the subject property, he filed a suit in} O.S.No.338 of^{2023 on the file of the PrincipalJuniorCivil} Judge, Chevella,^{for permanent injunction'Learned trial Court} granted ad-interim^{injunctionin the said suit'}

During^{the pendency of the said suit and the interim} order is in subsistence,^{at the instanceof the defendantsin the} said suit, respondent^{Nos.3to 5 are interfering with the civil} disputes between^{the petitioner and the defendantsin the said} suit without^{following the due procedurelaid downunderlaw'}

2

e4

Challenging the said action of respondent Nos.3 to 5, the

;;
.]
'E

petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Home. on instructions, would submit that neither respondent Nos.3 to 5 nor their subordinates interfered with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the defendants in the said suit as alleged by the writ petitioner in the writ aflidavit. If any complaint is received against the petitioner, respondent No.5 will conduct investigation, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under law.

Perusal of the affidavit filed in supporr of the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner has not mentioned the specific date on which respondent Nos.3 and 5 interfered with the possession ofthe petitioner over the suit schedule property. The allegations are vague and general.

Considering the submissions made b1, the leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Home, since the grievance of the petitioner is redressed, this Writ Petition is closed.

3

However, liberff is granted to respondent No.5 to take action

against the petitioner, if any complaint is received, strictly in

accordance with law

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRl. S. PRAVEEN^KUMAR ,^Advocate [OPUC]

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High^{Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

Two CD Copies

BM PVL

w

l

HIGH COURT

<br>

DATED:1010712025

-)s
'4."4:.,.i<br>" '' i't ;tir t' :.
(',
-l
0 3 sEP 205
'.2
///.
.:;,

ORDER

WP.No.19652 of 2025

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS

G epqeA
&"