High Court disposed of writ petition challenging police calling petitioners to settle third-party financial issues. Court directed authorities to follow due procedure without expressing opinion on merits.
Directions issued to follow due procedure; no costs.
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.
Is2s5 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTENTBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 28748 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.3 and 4 in calling the Petitioner to the Uppal Police Station, Rachakonda at the instance of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and forcing the petitioner to settle the financial issues of third parties and the respondent no.5 and 6 is as illegal, arbitrary and against to Law and consequently direct the respondent No.3 and 4 not to insist the petitioner to attend before the Uppal Police Station, Rachakonda without there being any complaint registered against the petitioner at the instance of respondent Nos.S and 6.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the citr Jmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nr ty bepleased direct the respondent No. 3 and 4 not to call the Petitioner to the( ppal Police Station, Rachakonda without there being any complaint registered a Tainst thepetitioner pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. G ESWARAIAH Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1 to 4: SRI G. ANIKETH RE )DY, AGP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 to 6: --
The Court made the following: ORDER
.1
I i I +t Ij I
,i I t .tJ
t i
i ; t
I l
I I
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEN.V.SHRAVANKUMAR WRIT PETITIONNo.28748 of 2025
ORDER:
Heardlearned counsel for the petitionersand Sri G Aniketh Reddy' learnecl AssistantGovernmentPleaderfor Homcappearingfor respondent Nos.1 to4. With their consent,this writ petitionis being taken up for disposal at thc aimissiorrstage itself'
2.Thiswritpetitionhasbeenfiledseekingthefollowingprayer:-
I
---..*{
.i-
. F+H t\ tl
2
i t
costs
SD/- B. REKHA RANI ----.-SI;TANT REGISTRATT //TRUE COPY// \ sEcTroN oFFtcER
To,
V
c ?1.o)
c
I 9n"cc to SRI G. ESWARataTJ an.,^^^.^ :. iWI 55i:r:: ? "'-' [6,fi t.: ffi f B:?f EjPn: t?] te o r re r a n g a n a ro U rl MMT GJP
1
HIGH COURT
DATED:2210912025
ORDER
<br>
WP.No.28748 of 2025
,,', . i
',:r i i:l: W
):.,
'+
DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITON WITHOUT COSTS
19
\t
il lrI
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police calling petitioners to station to settle third-party financial issues without registered complaint is illegal?
Whether authorities must follow due procedure before taking action on petitioners?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ir/ulakalapalli Surendra Chari
Saragula Rajendra Prasad
State of Telangana
Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate
Station House Officer, Uppal Police Station
Sub-inceptor of Police, Uppal Police Station
N.V.SHRAN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
