Dismissed

Mohan Gundeti v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Sept 2025WP/28971/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police harassment, illegal detention and seizure of their phones, wallets, laptop and car without a registered crime. Respondents showed the seizure was pursuant to Crime No.194 of 2016 and the property was produced before the Magistrate. Finding no material of excess by police, the Court dismissed the writ, leaving remedies before the trial Court for return of property.

What did the court decide?

None granted; dismissal without prejudice to seeking release of seized property before the trial Court.

Mohan Gundeti Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 28971 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohan Gundeti, S/O Sri Bhumaiah, Aged about 40 years, resident of Gandhi Road, Korutla Village, Karimnagar District

¶9

Katakam Murali, S/O Sri Gangaram, Aged about 42 years, resident of Mannegudem, Medipalli Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶10

Mahesh Ankam, S/O Sri Gangaram, Aged about 33, resident of Room No. 2, Building No. 2, Gomata Nagar, Worli, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai - 18

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar, Telangana

¶15

The Station House Officer, Korutla Police Station, Karimnagar District, Telangana

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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, Order or a Direction, one more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring i. the action of the Respondents in harassing the Petitioners and interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioners by summoning the Petitioners repeatedly to the 3rd Respondent Police Station, without there being any crime registered, ii. illegally seizing the mobile phones, wallets, computer and car belonging to the Petitioners and iii. making the Petitioners visit the Police Station continuously for 4 days, while illegally detaining the 3rd Petitioner in the 3rd Respondent Police Station, and iv. coercing the 1st Petitioner to write a false complaint against his will as if he was cheated, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being in utter violation of Articles 14,21 and 300 A apart from

¶18

being in violation of the provisions of the lndian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code and consequently direct the Respondents i. to return the belongings of the Petitioners consisting of Wallets, Cellular phones, Dell Laptop, Maruti Swift Car bearing No. AP 29 CC 0044 to the Petitioners ii. and further direct the Respondents not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners without folloraring the due process of law.

¶19

I.A. NO:1OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 35866 OF 2016)

¶20

Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in 'the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondr=nts to immediately and forthwith return all the belongings of the Petitioners, c')nsisting of Wallets, Cellular Phones, Dell Laptop, Maruti Swift Car bearing No. AP 29 CC 0044 to the Petitioners. pending disposat of the writ petition.

¶21

co u nse I ror trre t"t' T;:';,5X,ll3lX'^'Jfr s AN D co N s u LrAN rs "ArE

¶22

counsel for R:espondents:SRl G.AN|KETH REDDy,AGp FoR HoME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

I (-

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE^N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.28971 OF 2016

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Gonstitution of^lndia seeking the following relief:

¶28

"...to pass a wit, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaing the action of the Respondents in harassing the Petitioners and inbrtering with the life ancl libefty of the petitioners by summoning the Petitioners repeatedly to the 3rd Respondent Police Station without there being any crime registered illegally seizing the mobile phones, wallets, computer and car belonging to the Petitioners and making the Petitione$ visit the Police Station continuously for 4 days while illegally detaining the 3rd Petitioner in the 3rd Respondent Police Station and aercing the lst Petitioner to write a false complaint against his will as^if he was cheated as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional beingⁱⁿ utter violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A apaft from beingⁱⁿ violation of the^provisions of the lndian Penal Cde and^Ctiminal Procedure Code and consequently direct the Respondents^to retum the belongings of the Petitioners cunsistr'hg of^Wallets Cellutar Phones, Dell Laptop, Maruti Swift Car bearing No/AP²⁹ CC 0044 to the Petitioners and further direct the Respondenfs not to inteffere with the life and liberty of the Petitbners without following the due^process of law and^grant such other relief....-"

¶29

Heard Ms.K.K.Sinduja, learned counsel representing^Panasia Advocates and Consultants, counsel for the^{petitionersand} Mr.G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Home} appearing for respondents.

¶30

Leamed counsel for the^petitioners submitted^{that the} respondents interfered with the life and liberty of the^{petitionersby} illegally detaining them and seizing their mobile^{phones, wallets,and}

¶31

¶32

other penlonal belongings. On that basis, the present petition was filed seeking appropriate directions from this Court.

¶33

Leerrned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the allegations of unlawful interference with the life and liberty of the petitioners are unfounded. lt was contender! that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2, 3, and 4 in Crime No.194 of 2016, and pursuant to the investigation, their presence was lawfully secured. During the course of proceedings, certain property was seized from their possession and duly deposited before th,: learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korufla, on 14.09.2013, under Form No. 60 in D.C.1681/2016. Hence, the contentions advanced by the petitioners are without substance, and the petition deserves dismissal.

¶34

I ha're carefully perused the material available on record.

¶35

Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and the facts disclosed, it is evident that the presence of the petitioners was secured and propefty was seized strictly in pursuance of the crime proceedings. Except for the said seizure, there is no material to suggest that the respondents/police acted beyond the scope of investigation. Moreover,^' the fact that the seized property has been duly produced before the court concerned sufficiently addresses the contention of the petitioners with respe<;t to the lawfulness of the seizure.

¶36

¶37

I !

¶38

ln these circumstances, as no merit is found in the claims advanced by the^petitioners, the^{present petition} is liable to be dismissed. However, such dismissal shall be without^prejudice to the right of the^petitioners to avail themselves of appropriate remedies in accordance with law before the trial Court for seeking release or return of the seized^property.

¶39

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed, There shall be no

¶40

order as to costs.

¶41

Miscellaneous Petitions,^pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

To,

¶43

sD/- u. su SISTANT-RE //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to M/s.PANASIA^{ADVOCATES AND CON} TANTS, Advocate. toPUcl

¶44

Two CCs to GP FOR^{HOME, High Court for the State of Telanganaat:} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

Two CD Copies.

BSK

GJP /4-

aa F

HIGH COURT

DATED :0210912025

ORDER

WP.No.l28971 ol 2016

DISMISS}ING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOT'T COSTS

¶54

pr \b n

Mohan Gundeti v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Gundeti 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Maruti Venkat Ram Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Sri. Govind Murali, Vs The State of Telangana

Porika Roopsingh Vs The State of Telangana

Oruganti Durga Vs State of Telangana

Annapureddy Anupama Reddy , Anu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Rev. Gautam Mohan , Moses, G.Th. Vs The State of Telangana