Disposed

Mohammed Mateen Ali, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Oct 2025WP/30785/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police were coercing them to settle a civil dispute with respondent No.4 over a flat sold under an agreement of sale, while a criminal case and a specific performance suit were pending. The court directed authorities not to interfere in the civil dispute and to follow due procedure.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed directing respondents not to interfere in the civil dispute pending over the subject property and to follow due procedure; petitioners to cooperate with enquiry.

Mohammed Mateen Ali, Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^325s 1

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

WRIT

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Mateen Ali, S/O. Late. Mohammed Arshad Ali, Aged About 64 Years, Occ: Business, R/O. H.No.16-2-51l8/A, Akbarbagh, Malakpet,Hyderabad- 500036, T.G.

¶9

Syed Khairath Ali, S/O. Late. Syed Razzaq Ali, Aged About 44 Years,Occ.Joumalist, R/O.H.No.23-2-19211 , Moghalpura, Charminar,Hyde_r-abad-500002. Presently R/O.16-1-2316, Farahcolony, Saidabad, Hyd,53.

¶10

WRIT PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

St4e of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Office at Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director General of Police., State of Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

Station House Officer, p.S., Dabeerpura, Hyderabad.

¶15

AbdulRaheem, S/O. Abdul,Rahman, Aged_About 59 years, Occ . Business, R/ o. Flat. No. 503. Tirumata nluri Niva-ibhinJr,iriluaa, rr,ialat]ret Hyderabad 500O24

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3, in interfering in civil dispute and coercing the petitionr with the Respondent No.4 is i,egat, arbitrarr, ,r"""J:r:.;:::ji::::j:ff fundamentar rights of the petitioner herein guaranteed under Articre 21 0f the Constitution of lndia and consequen,y direct the Respondent No.4, not to interfere into the property of petitioners i.e., frat No. 503 0n fifth froor in Tirumara

¶18

Alluri Nivas c;omplex admeasuring, gg4 sft, incrusive of common area, together with undividerj share of land admeasuring 35.00 Sq yards, out of g07 sq yards, in premises No. 16-3-991/'t17, on prot No.7 situated at chancharguda, Marakpet, Hyderabad

¶19

IA 1 OF 2tj

¶20

Petition under Section^',t51 cpc praying that in the circumstances sitated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3, not to interfere into the property of petitioners flat No. 503 on fifr'h floor in Tirumala Alluri Nivas complex admeasuring, 994 sft, inclusive of common area, together with undivided share of land admeasuring 35.00 Sq yards, out of 907 Sq^yards, in premises No. 16-3_ gg1 t 1 17, on plot No.7 situated at chacharguda, Marakpet, Hyderabad, pending disposar of the Writ Petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAHMOOD KHAN

¶22

Counsel for the llespondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Flespondent^No.4:- "

¶24

The Court made lhe^{following:ORDER}

¶25

THE^{HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N'V'SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitionersandlearned Plead.er^{forHome aPPearing for} Assistant^Government With^{their consent'this writ petition is} resPondent^{Nos'1 to 3'} at the^{admission stage itself' Notice to} taken^{uP for disPosal} by disPensed^with' respondent^{No'4 is here}

¶28

2 This writ^{petition is filed seekingfollowing prayer:-}

¶29

"...d"eclaring^{the action of the RespondentNo'3 in} interfering in^{ciuit disputeand coercing the petitioners} to settle the ciuil dispute^{with Respondent No.4 is} illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional^{and uiolation of the} fund.amentat^{rights of the petitionerherein guaranteed} und.er Article 21 of the^{Constitutioru of India and} consequentlg direct the Respondent No.4 not to interfere into the property of petitioners i.e., Jlat No.5O3 on fifth floor in Tirumala Alluri Niuas complex admeasuring 994 Sq.ft., inclusiue of common area together utith undiuided share of land ad.measuring 35.00 Sq.yards out of 907 Sq.Yards in premises No. 16-3-991/ 1/ 7 on Plot No.7 situated at Chachalguda, Malakpet, Hyderabad (subject property)..."

¶30

¶31

¶32

The facts of the case in brief as stated ,.r. rh^+ _^d are that respondent No'4 has obtained loan from Beral Finance and purchased the subje<:t property. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 purchased the subject property by entering into an Mou on 21.04.2021 with respondent No'4 and on the same day entered into Absorute Agreerrrent of sare and paid an amount of Rs.2,55,5 34/-.The petitioner cleared l5 months installments i.e., approximately an amount of Rs'6,oo,ooo/- on beharf of respondent No.4, however, petitioner came to know that the loan EMI which he is paying is held in the name of Ruby Enterprises represented by its Propriet,rs i.e., respondent No.4. petitioner No.2 also entered into Absolute Agreement of Sale with respondent No.4 on 23 .o I .2c'2o and paid an amo unt of Rs. 1 0 ,0o ,ooo / - and got cheated. In that regard, petitioner No.2 filed a suit for specific performance and perpetual injunction in o.s.No.5 s63/2024 which pt:nding before the Junior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderab:rd.

¶33

3.1. It is; further submitted that respondent No.4 filed a private complaint before VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Same wa:s forwarded to concerned Police Station. The^petitioners are arra\led,^{as AccusedNos.1 and 2 tn Cr.No.|1412025on the} fiN of^{\iIIr Addl.chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally for the}

¶34

4.'-

¶35

¶36

offences under Sections 318(4), 316, 319(211,338, 351 read with 3(5) BNS and 175(3) of BNSS dated L9.06.2025. It is submitted that respondent No.4 has falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case only to extract money from the petitioners illegally. It is the further case of petitioners that respondent No.3 has called the petitioners to the Police Station on several occasions and forcing the petitioners to settle the matter with respondent No.4. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶37

4 Learned Assistant Government preader for Home has placed a copy of instructions issued by sub-Inspector of police, Dabeerpura porice station and u,ourd submit that on 23.0g .202s at 1g'oo hours the respondent porice received a court referred complaint fired by respondent No.4 stating that he is the owner of subject property craimed by way of mortgage with Bajaj Finance in the year 2019. Thereafter, the comprainant agreed to se, the prot to petitioner No.1 whereby petitioner No.1 assured to crear the roan and EMIs. It is further submitted that petitioner No. r defaurted in paying EMIs and rater, petitioner No.l without intimating to the comprainant gave the subject property on rent to petitioner No'2. It is further submitted that petitioner Nos.l and 2 corroborated with each other and created fake agreement ..,^{,rt sare by i)ryirg the signature} of the comprainant and in that

¶38

¶39

regard, respondent No.4 lodged a private complaint before VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad and^petitioner No.2 filed a suit for specific performance and^perpetual injunction in O.S.No.556312024 which^{pending beforethe Junior} Civil .ludge, City Ci.y;il :Tr,t, flYderabad.^{Thereafter,as per} orders of VIII Additional^{Chief Judicial Magistrate, respondent} No.3 registered^{a case in cr.No.ll4l2O25against the petitioners} for the offences^{under Sections318(4)' 316' gl9(21'338' 351} readwith3(5)BNSand175(3)ofBNSSdated:19.06.2025.Thle respondt:nt^{Police tried to serve Section 35(3) notice againstthe} but^{faited todo so' The case is still under} petitioners, for collection^{of certified documentsand until and} investigation unless^the investigation^{is completed' the respondentPolice} cannot^{come to anY conclusion'}

¶40

5.Inthatviewofthematter'thiswritpetitionisdisposedof directingtherespondentauthoritiesnottointerfereinthecivil disputespendingonthesubjectpropertyandshallfollowdue procedurt:^{as contemplatedunder law for further courseof} action.Nt:ed.lesstostatethatpetitionersshallcooperatewiththe

¶41

enquiry

¶42

¶43

with the above directions,.this writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶45

No order as to costs.

¶46

SO/. M.NAGAM ASSISTANT REG

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, office at secretariat, Hyderabad

¶52

2 The Director General of Police., State of relangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer, p.S., Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. 4, One CC to SRt TMAHMOOD KHAN, Advocate tOpUCI 6.5. Two CD Two ccs Copiesto Gp FoR H.ME, High court for the state of rerangana. [oUT]

TKS B\

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/1 012025

ORDER

WP.No.30785^{of 2025}

¶59

r 6 !|'[R ilffi
*

¶60

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUTCOSTS

Mohammed Mateen Ali, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Mateen Ali, v. 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

Janga Chinna Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Ahmed Abdul Qadeer Vs The State of Telangana

Nenavath Kishan Vs the State of Telangana

M/s. Smoky Tales Cafe and Grill Vs The State of Telangana

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Ttcs) Vs The State of Telangana

Singa Reddy Joseph Reddy Vs The State of Telangana