Dismissed¶45

Atkapuram Shankar, Adilabad Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 8 Ors.

Telangana HC18 Sept 2025WP/20829/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Illegal custody in police lock-up; NTPC Police Station, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District; Station House Officer and Sub Inspector (N. Sagar); dowry harassment report dated 20.06.2016 by daughter of respondent No.9; manhandling before SHO; no crime/FIR registered; only letter of counsel issued; Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar guidelines dated 2-7-2014; writ of mandamus under Article 226; Articles 14 and 21; Section 151 CPC interim application (WPMP No. 25547 of 2016); lapse of time; writ petition dismissed, no costs; High Court for the State of Telangana, Justice N. Tukaramji, 18/09/2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ¶45

Atkapuram Shankar, Adilabad Dist. Vs Prl. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondents 7 and 8 in keeping the petitioner in illegal custody for more than one hour in the NTPC Police Station lock-up, and respondent No.7's failure to intervene when respondent No.9 caught hold of the petitioner's collar and tried to manhandle him, was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

The petitioner's allegations that respondent No.7, the Station House Officer, kept him in illegal custody for one hour and failed to intervene when respondent No.9 manhandled him cannot be accepted in light of the explanation offered by respondent No.7.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The counter of respondent No.7 makes it clear that no crime was registered and that, upon receipt of the representation from respondent No.9, only a letter of counsel was issued in view of the situation; the petitioner's allegations therefore appear to be without substance.

¶44

Key takeaways

If the petitioner was genuinely aggrieved by the acts of respondent No.9, it was open to him to pursue appropriate remedies available under law; in the absence of such recourse, the contentions raised in the writ petition are found to be without merit.ratio¶44
Considering also the lapse of time, this Court is of the view that nothing substantial remains in the petition for adjudication.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Judge (N. Tukaramji, J.), 18.09.2025 - Writ Petition No. 20829 of 2016 (Atkapuram Shankar v. State of Telangana and others; none appeared for the petitioner). The petitioner alleged that respondents 7 and 8 (Station House Officer and Sub Inspector, NTPC Police Station, Ramagundam) kept him in illegal custody for more than one hour in the police station lock-up on the plea of a complaint submitted by the daughter of unofficial respondent No.9, and that the silence of respondent No.7 emboldened respondent No.9 to catch hold of his collar and try to manhandle him; he sought a writ of mandamus and a direction to respondent No.7 to register any complaint received from respondent No.9's daughter per the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar dated 2-7-2014. Held, dismissing the petition: per the counter/explanation of respondent No.7, no crime was registered and, upon receipt of the representation from respondent No.9, only a letter of counsel was issued in view of the situation; the allegations were without substance; if genuinely aggrieved by the acts of respondent No.9, the petitioner could pursue appropriate remedies available under law; and considering the lapse of time, nothing substantial remained for adjudication. No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, closed.

¶1

13217 |

¶2

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

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO; 20829 0F 2016}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Atkapuram Shankar , S/o Late A.Posham,^{AgeQ qpouJ51ye?F, Oq"^?!?9,} Panihayat Raj Department, Asifabad,^{Adilabad District Rl/o HNo. 12-27412'} Gowtham Nagar, ft/anchiryal,^Ad ilabad^District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The Director Ge-neral' of Police,^{State of Telangana, Basheerabagh,} Hyderabad.

¶14

The Deputy inspector General of^{Police, KarimnagarRange, Karimnagar} District.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar^{District at Karimnagar}

¶16

The Deputy Superintendent of^{Police,Godavqlikhani'(arimnagardistrict.} . 6. The Circle inspector of Police,^{NTPC Police Station, Ramagundam,} .Karimnagar District..

¶17

The Stailon House Officer, NTPC^{Police Station, Ramagundam, Karimnagar} District.

¶18

N.Sagar, Sub lnspector of Police,^{NTPC Police Station,Ramagundam} Karimnagar District.

¶19

Sandra Suresh, S/o Prakasham,^{Agedabout 50 years, Occ MusicTeacher} R/o H.No. 9-7-26, Vittal^{Nagar, Godavarikhani, KarimnagarDistrict.}

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ order or direction more^{particularly one.in the nature of} WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring^{the action of the respondents 7 and 8 in} keeping into illegal custody for more^{than one hour in the NTPCPolice station} Lock up on the^plea of a complaint^{submittedby the daughter of respondent} No.9 and the silence maintained^by the^{respondentNo. 7 emboldened the} respondent No.9 had caught hold the^{collar of petitioner shirt and tried to}

¶22

manhandle him before andⁱⁿ the^{chamberof 7th respondent is illegal,arbitrary,} violative of F,rinciples of Natural^{Justice and also againstArticle 14,21 of the} Constitution 9f lndia and^{consequentlydirect the respondent No.7 to register the} complaint if arny^{received by him from the 9th respondentdaughter by following} the guideline,s^given by^{the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in ArneshKumarVs. State of} Bihar dated 2-7-2014

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP.^{NO: 25547 OF 2016)}

¶24

petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidav t filed in support^{of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto} direct the Tttr respondent^{to stop harassment to the petitionerand his family} members upon the complaint^{said to have beenreceived from the gth} respondent daughter to enable^{the petitionerto attend his day to day official} duties pending disposal^{of the mainWrit Petition}

¶25

Counsel for ttre Petitioner:^{Ms. P. LALITHAKAMESH}

¶26

Counsel for ttre Respondent^{Nos. 1to7: SRI R. LAXMIKANTHREDDY,} AGP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.8&9: --}

¶28

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶30

¶31

WRIT P TITION No.20829 OF²⁰¹⁶

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of^lndia

¶34

seeking the following relief:

¶35

"...1o rssue a writ order or direction tnore particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondenls⁷ and 8 in keeping into illegal custody for more than one^{hour in the} NTPC Police Station Lock up on the^plea of a^{complaint submittedby} the daughter of respondent No.g and the silence maintained by the respondent No. 7 emboldened the respondent No.9 had caught hold the cbllar of^petitioner shirl and tried to manhandle^him before^{and in} the chamber of^y'h respondent is itlegat, arbitrary,^violative of^Principles of Natural Justice and a/so agar)rst Article 14. 21 of the^Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.7 to register^the complaint if any received by him hom the^gth respondent daughter by following the guidelines given by the Hon ble Supreme Coudⁱⁿ Arneesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar dated 2-7-2014 andpass^such other order or orders as this Hon'ble couft may deem fit^{and properin the} circumstances of the case... .."

¶36

None appeared for the petitioner

¶37

Heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government

¶38

Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

¶39

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, as per written instructions, the daughter of respondent No. 9 lodged a report dated 20.06.2016 against the^petitioner alleging^{harassmenton account of} additional dowry. The concerned police, after making^preliminary entries, called the petitioner and his family members on 22.06.2016. However,^the attempt at conciliation did not materialize and, considering the nature of the allegations, the police did not register any crime. However the^petitioner contended that he was kept in lockup without registration of any crime^on

¶40

¶41

I I i

¶42

the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No. 9. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the complaint.

¶43

I have perused the material on record.

¶44

The petitioner alleges that respondent No.7, the Station House Officer, ke pt him in illegal custody for one hour and failed to intervene when unof icial respondenVrespondent No. 9 manhandled him, despite not registering any crime. These allegations, however, cannot be accepted rn light of the explanation offered by respondent No. 7. The counter makes it clear that no crime was registered and that, upon receipt of the representation from respondent No. 9, only a letter of counsei was issued in view of the situation. The petitioner's allegations therefore appear to be without sub3tance. lf the petitioner was genuinely aggrieved by the acts of respondent No.9, it was open to hinr to pursue appropriate remedies available under law- ln the absence of such recourse. the contentions raised in this writ petition are found to be without merit. considering also the lapse of time, this Court is of the view that nothing substantial remains in the petition for adjudication.

¶45