Disposed

Rafath and 3 Others, v. Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and 4 Others

Telangana HC9 Sept 2025WP/31156/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police interference in their civil disputes with the fifth respondent. During pendency, the underlying crime arising from her complaint was compounded before the Lok Adalat, rendering the grievance infructuous. The court disposed of the writ petition directing police not to interfere in civil disputes except in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; police directed to refrain from interfering in the petitioners' civil disputes except in accordance with law; no costs.

Rafath and 3 Others, Vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31156 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

9Ve{ Ra{a!!. Al[ .S1o. Syed Sarvar Ali, Aged about 36 years, Occ Private lpployed^{R/o. D.No.81-301B,Vivek Nagar, Gooty Road, Kurnool, Kumool} District.

¶9

qy"A Khader. Ah. Q1o._ Syed Sarvar Ali, Aged about 37 years, Occ Private lmployee,^{Rl/o. D.No.81-301B,Vivek Nagdr, Gooty Road,Kurnool,,Kurnool} District.

¶10

-S.y"4 p.arvarAli; S/o:Syed Khaliq, Aged about 68 years, R/o. D.I.lo.81-3OlB, Vivek Nagar, Gooty Road, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶11

Syed Didar Munnissa, Wo. Syed Sarvar Ali, Aged abrcut 62 years, Occ Housewife, Rl/o. D.No.81-301 B, Vivek Nagar, Gooty Road, Kum&!, Kumool District.

¶12

...PETITIONEi

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Telangana, Home Department, Secretariat, Hlrderabad. Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboo bnagar, tvla haboobnagar District.

¶16

The Circle lnspector of Potice, Circle Office Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶17

lfe^{pub lnspector of Police,Town Police Station, Gadwal, Matraboobnagar} District.

¶18

Syed Rizwana, Wo. Rafath Ali, Aged about 32 years, Occ Housewife, Bgqi9it'rg^{at D.No.2/55, Dauderpalfi,Gadwal Rural,Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar} District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cqurt may be pleased to issue a writ of mandarnus or any other appropriate writ or directkrn declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioners and 5th respondent as illegal and consequent{y

¶21

direct the 3r,C and 4th respondent not to interfere in the civil disputes and^pass such other or further orders as the Honble Court feels deem fit and^proper if the facts and cin:umstances of the case.

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 3nl and 4th respondents not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioners and the Sth respondent,^pending disposal of the WP.

¶23

Counsel for tlre Petitioner : SRI G.SRAVAN KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for tlre Respondents No.lto4 : SRI R.LA(MIKANTH REDDY,AGP FOR HOME Counsel for tlre Respondents No.S:

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

f-')

¶28

THT HONOI'RABLI^{SRI JUS,rICE N.TUKARAM.II}

¶29

¶30

This writ Petition is filed^{under Article 226 0f} Constitution of India^{seeking the following relief/s:-}

¶31

"...to issue a uztit of^{rnandamus ot Zny other appropriatewrit ot} direction decladng the action^{of the 3rd and 4th respondent in} intedering in the civil^{disputes betrveenthe petitionersand 5th} rcspondeit as illug"l and^{consequently directthe 3rd end 4th} resiondent not to^{intedere in the civil disputesand} _pass^suchother or^-furth* orders as the Flon'ble Court^{feels deem6t and propetif} the facts and citctrmsances^{of the case and} Pass^{such other} ordef......"

¶32

None appeared bn behalf^{of the petitioners.}

¶33

I have heard^{Mr.Rla:rrnikanthReddy, learned Assistant} Government Pleader for^{Home appearing for respondent} Nos.1 to 4.

¶34

kamed Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Home submits} that the contelrtion of^{tlre petitiooers that, they are being frequendy} sulrunoned to the police^{station and that the respondent police are} interfering in theit civil disputes,^{is wholly unsubstantiated by any} material. It is further submitted^{that the respondentpolice}

¶35

authorities have never interfered \rith the civit'dirprd.. of the petitioners. I{e points out that respondent No.5 lodged a police complaint, on the basis of uzhich Crime No.242 of 2016 was registered. t)uring the course of enquiry and .investigation, the presence of the petitioners was secured. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magrstrate of First ,CJass, Gadwal. Subsequendy, during the pendency of those proceedings, the parties amicably setded their disputes, lefore the I,ok Adalat on 09.03.2018,^.vhereupon the offences were compourded by the competent Court. Thus, no ftrrther cause surrrives for adiudication in this writ pr:rition.

¶36

I have <:arefully perused the materials available on record.

¶37

In vier,r of the developments that transpited during the pendency of this petition, and as the grievance raised by the petitioners ha.s become infructuous in light of the settlement of the undedying c::ime, no cause of action now sr-rnrives. However, havrng regard to the submissions and the contention regarding civil

¶38

¶39

disputes, it is directed that the respondent police authorities shall

¶40

rckain from interferi4g in the civil disputes of the petitioners, save

¶41

and except in strict accordance with laV.

¶42

Accordingln this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be

¶43

no order as to costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

To,

¶46

SD/.B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT ISTRAR ,,TRUE C;APYI OFFICER

¶47

The.Principat Secretary Stqte of Telangana, Home Department, Secretariat, Hlrderabad.

¶48

The superintendent of Pollce,^{:Mahaboobnagar,} Mahaboobnagar District.

¶49

The Circle lnspector of Potice, Circte Office Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶50

I|g 9yo lnspector of Polioe, Town^police Station, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶51

One CC to SRI G.SRAVAN KUMAR, Adrocate. tOpUCI

¶52

Two ccs to GP FoR HOME, Hlgh court forthe state of relangana. [oUT]

¶53

Two CD Copies.

BSK € BS

\ <br>

HIGH COIJRT

DATED:09/09/2025

D
t
C) 0 5 r[B 2026
* *

¶59

RDER

¶60

WP.No.3'l^{156 of 2016}

¶61

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶62

(g?r4 'vO i]%tt"

Rafath and 3 Others, v. Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafath and 3 Others, v. Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and 4 Others

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

Mahesh Chandra Chowdhary, Kolkata. Vs the State of Ts.,Home,Hyderabad, and 5 Otrs.

Syed Azmath Hussain Jafferi Vs The State of Telangana

Malireddy Mounika Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Shaik Zafar, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Malyala Mallavva Vs The State of Telangana

B. Madhavi Vs The State of Telangana