Disposed

Koppolu Pradeep Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2025WP/2949/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged police interference in his civil property dispute and threats of false implication. The court directed respondents 4 to 6 not to interfere in the civil disputes except by due process of law, while permitting investigation in Crime No.168 of 2023 subject to Section 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 4 to 6 directed not to interfere in civil disputes except due process; investigation in Crime No.168/2023 permitted per Section 41A CrPC; no costs.

Koppolu Pradeep Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^32e6 l

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2949 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Koppolu Pradeep Reddy, S/o. Jalander Reddy (Late), Age 48 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.12-98, Kethapaly (V)86(M), Nalgonda District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

The Superintended of Police, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda.

¶14

The Dy. Superintended of Police, Nalgonda Division] Nalgonda District at Nalgonda.

¶15

The Circle lnspector, Shaligaurama, at Nakrekal Town of Nalgonda District.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Kethapaly Police Station Kethapaly (V) and M), Nalgonda district.

¶17

Sri. Andthala siva teja, sio. Venaktaiah, Age. 37 Years, Occ. S.l.Police, Kethapally P.s. at Kehthapaly (V) and (M), Nalgonda district.

¶18

Beeram Jan Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Age: 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Kethapaly (V)and(M), Nalgonda District

¶19

Mudi Reddy karunakar Reddy, Sio. Veera Reddy, Age. 44 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri"/o. Kethapaly (V) and (M), Nalgonda District

¶20

Koppolu Amernder Reddy, S/o. Srinvias Reddy Age. 48 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Kethapaly (V)&(M), Nalgonda. District

¶21

10 Koppolu Srinvas Reddy, S/o. venkat Reddy (Late), Age. 75 years, Occ. Retd. Teacher, Rl/o. Kethapaly (V)&(M), Nalgonda District

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

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 direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the high handed action of respondent No 2, to

¶24

6 mainly the 6th respondent in the capacity of the 5th respondent interfering in the civil disputes to support the other respondents fJo. 7 to 10 which the injunction orders granted by the Honble court vide l.A.No. 24 of 2024 in O.S.No. 4 of 2024 daled .12-1-2024 interrupting the cattle shed in the bearing H. No. 2- 9711 , with in sy.No 548/a, nearsing 327.67 Sq. yards, plinth aria 257.24 Sq Feets, roofed with ACC situated at Kehtapally Village arrd Mandal of Nalgonda District and threatening by the 6th respondent to implicate the petitioner in the false ioisted criminal cases is without jurisdiction or authority, bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and violating the natural justice illegal violative of Art 21 of the constitution of lndia CONSEQUENTLY direct the respondents No. 2 to 6 refrain and not to interfere in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the respondents No. 7 to 10 in subject lands, O.S.No . 4 of 2024 pouring the threats foisting false cases misusing the position of the Sth respondent.

¶25

lA NO:^'l OF 2025

¶26

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in thr-. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 2 to 6 refrain and not to interfr:re in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the respondents No. 7 to 10 in subject lands, o.S-No.4 of 2o24 pouring the threats foisting false cases rnisusing the position of the Sth respondent.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.L.NARASIMHA RAO

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: AGp FOR HOME

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICEC. V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶32

WRIT PETIT^{ION No.2949 0F 2025}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The writ^{petitionis filed seeking followingrelief:}

¶35

"...to issue a Writ,^{order or directionmore particularlyone in} the nature of^{WNT OF MANDAM(IS declaring the high} hatrded action of^{respondentNo'2 to 6 mainlythe dh} respondent in^{the capacity of the 5'h respondent interferingin} the civil disputes^{to support the otherrespondentsNo'7 to l0} whiclt the injunction^{ordersgranted by the Hon'ble courtvide} I.A. No.24 of^{2024 in O'S' No'4 of 2024 dated 1212024} interrupting^{the cattleshed in the bearingH'No'2-97/l with in} Sy.No.548/a^{nearingj27.67Sq' yards,plinth aria 257'24 Sq'} Feets roofed^{with ACCsituated at Kehtapally Villageand} Mandal of^{NalgondaDistrict and threatening by thedh} respondent to^{implicate the petitionerin the false foisted} criminal cases^{is without jurisdiction or authority bad in law} illegal, arbitrary^{and violatingthe naturaljustice' illegal} ,iolative of Art^{21 of theConstitution} "J lndia CONSEOUENTLY^{direct the respondents NO'2 to 6 refrainand} not to interfere^{in the civildisputespending between the} petitioner and^{the respondents No'7 to l0in subiectlands} O.S. No.4 of^{2024 pouring the threats foistingfalse cases} misttsing^{the position of the 5'h respondentand pass ' '"}

¶36

It is^{stated that petitioneris owner and possessor of the} property bearing^{H.No.2-97l1admeasuring327 '67 sqrme yards in} Survey No.548ia^{situated at KethepallyVillageand Mandal'} Natgonda^{District. As respondentNos'7 to 10 are interferingwith the} peaceful^{possessionof the petitionerover the subject property'he has}

¶37

¶38

instituted a suit in O.S. No.04 of 2024 on the frle of rhe learned Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, (for short 'Trial Court ') seeking injunction restraining respondent Nos.7 to 1C, and others from interfering rvith the subject properly. The Triat Court vide ,rrder dated 12.01 .2024 in l.A. No.24 of 2024 in O.S. No.4 of 2024 has granted ex parte ad-interim injunction order restraining respondent Nos.7 to 10 and others tiom interfering with the subject property.

¶39

Grievance ol the petitioner is that at the instance of respondent Nos.7 to 10, respondent No.6 is frequently calling the petitioner to the Police Station and forcing him to enter into a compromisc/settlement with respondent Nos.7 to 10 as per the terms dictated by him.

¶40

Learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home. on instructions, would submit that on the complaint lodged by respondent Nos.7 to [0, a case in Crime No.168 of 2023 was registered against the petitioner. Pending investigation of the said crime, the mother of the petitioner has also lodgecl private complaint against respondent Nos.7 to I 0 which is ralso pending for investigation. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have called the petitioner to the Police Station only for the purpose of investigation in Crinre No. 168

of 2023 and they are not interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to l0 in any manner.

¶46

As it is stated by the leamed counsel for the petitioner that there are disputes with regard to the subject property and petitioner has instituted a suit in O.S. No.4 of 2024 on the file of Trial Court, and injunction order dated 12.01 .2024 was granted by the Trial Court in I.A. No.24 of 2024 in O.S. No.4 of 2024, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No's.4 to 6 not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 10, except due process of law. However, this order does not preclude the Police to proceed with the investigation in Crime No. 168 of 2023 registered against the petitioner, in accordance with law. If the presence of the petitioner, is required for the purpose of investigation, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are directed to comply with the procedure contemplated under Section 41A of the Code of the Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihart.

¶47

t t

¶48

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of

¶49

There shall by no order as to costs.

'^{zorc(a)scc zz:}

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶54

the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶55

SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶56

¶57

¶58

SE ON OFFICER

¶59

secretary' (Home Department), secretariat, Hyrlerabad, state

¶60

' Jif"",r'.fttiflal 2 The Superintended of police, Nalgonda District at Nalgonda. 3 Illflr;rt'o"rintended^{of Police, Nalgonda Division, NatgondaDistrict at} 4. The circle lnspector, Shaligaurama, at Nakrekal rown of Nalgonda District. 5. I:["T3:"Jl.l13Y:e^{officer' Kethapalv Police station Kethaparv(vJ andM),}

¶61