Disposed

Siddam Rajaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Jul 2025WP/20592/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged police respondents were pressuring him to settle a civil dispute with a financier in the latter's favour and interfering in his life and liberty. Both complaints lodged against him had been closed as 'civil in nature'. The court disposed of the writ petition directing authorities not to interfere with his life and liberty except in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with petitioner's life and liberty except in accordance with law; petition disposed of without costs.

Siddam Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20592 OF 2025

¶8

Between;

¶9

Siddam Rajaiah, S/o. Late Raja Veeru, aged about 76 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.^'l -7-590, Subedari, Hanmakonda.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Home), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Hanmakonda.

¶14

J The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hanmakonda

¶15

4 The Assistant Commissroner of Police; Kazipet.

¶16

5 The Station House Officer, PS, Madikonda, Hanmakonda.

¶17

b Kurapati Krishnamurthy, S/o. Ramulu, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Financier, N o. 1 6-4-21 O, Shivanagar, Warangal

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 writ or order or orders more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondents no. 2 to 5 in pressurizing and interfering with life and liberty of the petitioner besides interfering in the disputes between the petitioner and the 6th respondent which is civil in nature, as wholly illegal unjust and violative of Articles 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the official respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's life and liberty or call the petitioner to their respective police stations for any settlement with the respondent No.6.

lA NO: 1 OF 2o2s

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circu.nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cour.r. may be preased Hanumakonda to direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to call th€ petitioner to their respective police stations or interfere/press u rize the petitic ner to set e the monitory issue with the 6th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt SRIKANTH HARTHARAN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents No.1toS : Gp FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents No.6 :

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.2O592 of 2025

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Plea(er for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and with their consent, the Writ petition is taken up for hearing a]ld disposal at admission stage.

¶31

Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition a,,d the nature of lls i.voived, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessarlr for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶32

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are interfering in thc civil dispute existing between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent herein, and coercing the petitioner to settle the said dispute in favour of the unofhcial respondent No.6, thereby interfering with the life and iiberty of the petitioner, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegai and arbitrary.

¶33

¶34

Per contra, learned Government^{Pleaderf lr Home appearmg} for official respondents^{while denying the u'ril averments would} submit that the 6th respondent^{herein had initiiilllrapproachedthe} respondents-authorities on 25.O9 -2024^{and l:dged a complaint} against the petitioner herein,^{upon which tL c authorities have} made a GD entry and after^{causing preliminer-renquiry, which} revealed the dispute between the^{petitiorLerand unofficial} respondent No.6 to be a civii dispute,^{have closed the aforesaid} complaint on 06.12.2024^as "civil^{in nature".}

¶35

Learned Government^{Pleader would further submit that the} 6,h respondent hacl^{once-againapproached tht: 2'd respondenton} 24.06.2025 and lodged a complaint;^{that the 2"d respondent on} receiving the aforesaid complaint^{had forwardedtire same to the} 3.d respondent to enquire and^{submita repo:t; and that the 3'd} respondent on receiving the^{aforesaid complant as forwardedby} the 2"a respondent,^{after causing prelimirraryenquiry, had} submitted a report on^{14.O7.2025,whereby it is stated that since,} the contents of the complaint^{dt.24.06.2o25to be same as the} contents of the complaint^{dt.24.O9.2024'which after conducting} enquiry, having^{been closed as "civil innra'ture", the present}

\ \

t I

complaint, dt.24.O6.2O25 was also closed as "civii in nature" on 24.O7.2025.

¶40

Learned Government Pleader further submits that the respondents-authorities except causing preliminary enquiry into the aJoresaid complaints lodged by the 6th respondent herein, are not interfering in the civil disputes that may exist between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent herein or coercing the petitioner to settle the said dispute in favour of the 6th respondent, nor interfering with the life and liberty of the peritioner, S claimed.

¶41

7 The a-foresaid submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Home is taken on record.

¶42

Having regard to the submissions made as above and taking note of the fact that the 6th respondent having approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a complaint/ representation, lirstly on 25.09.2024 and thereafter on 24.06.2025, arld both th6 complaints having been closed as^,'civil in nature" on 06.12.2024 and 14.07.2025, respectively, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed

¶43

¶44

-i not to interfere {rith the life and liberty of the petitioner, except in

¶45

accordalce with 1au,

¶46

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Pe:ition is disposed

¶47

of. No order as to costs

¶48

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha1l

¶49

stand closed

¶50

SD/-A.PRATHIMA oEPUTY RE9TSTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶51

i SECTI DN OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The Principal Secretary, (Home), Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶54

2 The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, []anmakonda.

¶55

J The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hanmakonda

¶56

4 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kazipet.

¶57

5 The Station House Officer, PS, I/adikonda, Hanmakonda.

¶58

One CC to SRI SRIKANTH HARIHARAN, Advocate. [Ol)UC]

¶59

7 Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State ol Telangana. [OUT]

¶60

Two CD Copies.

BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710712025

c =_ir--- c;C.\o .-..<br>!i
o) I'r<br>L) 0 2 5E P zIE tt
t
o.Qsp4lct
---t'

¶66

ORDER

¶67

WP.No.20592 of 2025

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

\
B{ ?d

Siddam Rajaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddam Rajaiah 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

Syed Abdul Hakeem Vs The State of Telangana

B. Venkateswara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

C. Sham Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sunitha Devi Jena Vs The State of Telangana

Kotla Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Narlengula Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana