Petitioners alleged a Sub-Inspector was coercing them to settle cheque cases and detained petitioner No.2 arbitrarily; State stated a crime stood registered against her with a 41-A CrPC notice served. The Court recorded the submissions and directed the authorities to investigate Crime No.306/2024 strictly in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
,I i
: :
[3166 ]
I !'I I It I I I
! I I i
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 20085 OF 2025
Between:
.....PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
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 said acts, actions and deeds of respondent No. 4 and 5 as illegat, high handed, arbitrary and against Articles.14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia.
,
l.A.NO:f OF 2025
Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c roumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the writ petition, the High cou 1 may be preased to summon the CCTV footage of Chatrinaka police sta.i()n of Sunday i.e., 23.02.2025 between 13.30 hrs to 15.30 hrs and that of wcrk place of son of petitioners at Zoo park, the house rocarity of petitioners and porice station Chatrinaka between 4 30 pM, 5.00 to 6.00 pM and 6.30 pM to 9.30 ptvl of respectively of 25.06.2025 and peruse the same, conse quen,y punish the respondent No 4 T shoba working as sub-rnspector of por c:, chatrinaka porice station, Hyderabad in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the petitioners : SRI S.J.A Nadeem
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Gp FOR HOME
Counsel forthe Respondent No.4 & 5 : _
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No.2OO8S of 2025
ORDER:
I
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2
arbitrary axd in violation of Articles 14 & 2l oi the Constitution of India.
3
/
I I
crime arld called upon the 2nd petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, as the 2"d petitioner was not coming forward to furnish necessary information, the respondents_authorities have issued notice under Section 41-A cr.p.c. on 2s.o6.2025 by caJring the 2"a petitioner to the police station.
I \
7 . Learned Government pleader further submits that the respondents-authorities except causing investigation into the aforesaid crime registered against the 2-a petitioner herein are not coercing the petitioners to settle the cases instituted under NI Act.
8 The a_foresaid submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home is taken on record.
4
of. No order as to costs.
11 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if iury, pending shall
stand closed
I;D/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI a6\ISTEruT REGISTRAR
/ITRUE COPY//
ISECTION OFFICER
To
SA
GJP
I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1410712025
ORDER
WP.No.20085 of2025
2i [tl nr
<
DISPOSING OF THEW.P
AT THE STAGE OFADMISSION
WITHOUT COSTS.
/
1/3
t, /t /d
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police authorities acted illegally in detaining petitioner No.2 without a registered crime and pressuring withdrawal of NI Act cases.
What direction should govern investigation in Crime No.306/2024 against petitioner No.2.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Avasthi Balram
Avasthi Bhavana
The State of Telangana
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City Police
The Station House Officer, Chatrinaka Police Station
T. Shobha
T.Vinod Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
