Disposed

Murali Krishna Kona v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jul 2025WP/20761/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging police summoned the petitioner at a private party's behest in relation to a civil dispute. The State reported the complaint was enquired into and closed as civil in nature. The Court disposed of the petition directing authorities not to interfere with the petitioner's civil disputes or liberty except in accordance with law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Murali Krishna Kona 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 Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 20761 0F 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Murali Kristrna Kona, C/o .V.rjaya -prasad Kona, Aged about 41 years, Occ. lVlanaging Director. R/o Ftat No 304. Crystat Tower] Kohinoo. by d;; Ru;ii;. Beside Yashoda Hospital, Khanamei, Ir,4adhapur, Hyderabad _ 56OOAS.^"*"''

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 I!p_!lqt:^{of Telanggll Rep. by principat Secretary Home Deparrment,} 0/o .t.9lqlgana^{Secretariat Building. Burgula Rama} Krishna Rao Btiavan. NH ++, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, HyderabaO,-telangana - SOOOOa

¶13

2 Drreclor G.enelgl of Police (Telangana), Telangana State police Head Quarters, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, Telangana _ SOOOOa

¶14

3 The Station House Officer, Allapur police Station, 14_20166g, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad, Telangana-5000i g.

¶15

4 Yglglr"9^{MajidAli,.S/o Not known to petitioner. Aged.t\r1ajor,Occ. Sub-} lnspector ot^porice, Ailapur police station Allapur poiice Staiion. 14-201668, Rajrv candhi Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad, Telangana _ 500018.

¶16

The Station Horrse Officer, Kodad Town police Station Old National Hiohwav e, near l5H tC tsus Stand, Kodad. Suryapet. Telangana _ 50g206.

¶17

f) Kovuri.Suresh, S/o Kovurr Chennakesavulu, Aged aboul42 years, Occ_ C.onslltant,.Flat Nq. 1_01, 1st Floor. My Home ia*sfrya, fovier _2, CofOen Mrle Road, Kokapet, Rajendra Nagar, K.V. Rangaredby. Telangana - 500075

¶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 cJurt may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particulaay, one in the natuie of writ of Mandamus, declaring the actions of the Respondent No. 3 to 5 in making phone calls and demanding the presence of the petitioner at Allapur police Station and Kodad Police station at the behest of Respondent No. 6 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and insequently direct the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No.5 not to interfere with the

¶20

¶21

Petitroner's business or contact the petitioner at the behest r;f Respondent No. 6 in relation to the civil disputes between p"iit,on", andCesponcte nt No.6

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petrtion under Section 15.1 CpC praying that in the r;ix:umstances stated in the affidavit fited in support.of the_writ;;tt,;.: if,u'Htgn Co.rrl may be pteased to direct the Resporrdent No. 4- and n"rpJJ"n1 r.,ro.l not to corrtact the petitioner in any way pending disposal of the present writ petition

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. ALLU MIDHUN KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3&5: Gp FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&6: __

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD^KUMAR

¶30

WRIT PETITION N 0.20761of²⁰²⁵

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel fbr thc^{petitionerand leamed} Govemment Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of olficial rcspondents, and perused the^{record.With the consent of learned} counsel appearing for the^parties, the^{Writ Petition is takenup for} hcaring and disposal at admission stagc

¶33

) Having regard to the nature ol^{/l.s involved in the Writ Petition} and thc manner of disposal, this Court^{is of the view that noticeto} unolficial respondent is not^{necessarylbr adjudication of the present} Writ Petition.

¶34

l. 'f he case of the petitioner in brief is that respondent Nos.3 to 5 authorities are demanding the^{presenceof petitioner in theirrespective} Policc Stations at the behest of^{respondent No.6 in relation to civil} clisputes existing between the^{petitioner and 6'h respondent hercin,} which action of the respondent^authorities it^{is contended as highly} illegal, arbitrary and without^{authorityand sanction of law, with a} consequential direction to respondent^{authorities not to interfere in the} civ il d isputes.

4 Per cr.ttrlra, lear.ned Govemllgrl pleacler fc,r I{olte appearing on behall' ol'.r,ciar respo.de,ts rvhile denying r.r. writ averlrerts tvoultl sul,ntir that tltc 6'h t'espondent herein hac approachecl thc J rth |es|()rldcnl 'rtrtho'ity and l.dged cornplaint on l5-f ) /-2015 clainrinp that the pelirioncr having cheated hrm to a tune of Il:: _5.00 crores and on bcing askccl to retum the atbresaid amount, he b:ing threalened rvith his litt

¶39

I-carncd (iovcmment pleader lurther sutrr-tits thal the 5'l' rcsp.ndt'rrt rrutho.ity, on receiving the aforesairl .orrplainl, hacr rnade a G[) crrrr.v and [ook up preliminary enquiry to i erif,r, as to tltc correctncss r,r otlrcr.wise of the oontents of the complai.,rr.

¶40

I_ear.ne,d (iovernrnent pleader turther submits tJ.at dur.ing the coursc ol' cnqtrir.y into the aforesaid complaint. rrre respondent authorities havc called the petitioner, and being inforrrred about the disputc existirrg betrveen the petitioner and 6,h responde .r; and noticing the said disptrte ro be in relation to business activitie:, betr.r,ee, the petitioner and (r,r, respondent, the 5rr, respondent author.irv had closed the afor.esaid complaint l6_07 _2025 as civil in nature.

¶41

Learned (lovernment Pleader further subnr tri that the 5'r' r'espondent au thority except caus ing pr.elirninary eit(lLlr) into the

complaint lodged by rhe 6'h respondent herein on 15-07-2025, is not interfcring in the civil dispute that may exist between the petitioner and 6'h respondent or interfering with the life and liberty of the petrtioner.

¶46

The aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Plcader for Home is placed on record.

¶47

lJaving regard to the submissions made as above, and taking note of thc fact that initiatly, a complaint having been lodged against the petitioner with the 5th respondent authority on 15-07-20).5, and the said complaint, after causing preliminary enquiry, having been closed on 16-07 -2025 as civil in nature, this Courl is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed not to interfere with the civil disputes or personal life and iiberty of the petitioner except in accordance with law.

¶48

Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶49

I I . Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶50

stand closed

¶51

S /- L. VIJAYA^LAXMI ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary^{Home Department,0/o Telangana Secretariat} Building, Burgula Rama^{Krishna Rao Bhavan,NH44, Hill} Fort, Adarsh^Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana^{- 500063}

¶56

2 Director General of^{Police (Telanglla),Telangana S^tatePoliceHead} Quarters, Lakdikapul,^{Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004}

¶57

The Station House^{Officer,Allapur Police Station,14-201668,Rajiv Gandhi} Na af Borabanda H rabad. Tel ana-500018.

¶58

-7

¶59

The station House officer, Kodad rown porice Statior ()rd Nationar Highway 9, near TIIRTC Bus Stand, Kodad, 5uryapet, i"t"iga,,z, _ SOS2O6.

¶60

One CC to SRt. ALLU tMtDHUN KUMAR Advocate [OpJC]

¶61

Two CCs to GP FOR HOI\IE ,High Court for the State cf Telangana. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies KKS G GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810712025

ORDER

,'/ i('' li lr. ,i, ,_,-r..
,r 'l
.) 2 ! litP 2025
1l
D ..|''|..-,.,' '-. ,,,
- .,---'2'

¶67

¶68

WP.No.20761 ot 2025

¶69

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

Jr-l 1 {

Murali Krishna Kona v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Murali Krishna Kona v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunitha Devi Jena Vs The State of Telangana

Siddam Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kotla Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Krishna Nagar Plots Owners Welfare Society Vs The State of Telangana and 8 Others

Thota Ragini Vs The State of Telangana

Gantenapalli Babu Rao Vs The State of Telangana