Disposed

Chittiprolu Hemalatha, v. The State of Telangana,.

Telangana HC14 Nov 2025WP/34633/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged police harassment through repeated station summons over a private civil dispute. Government Pleader stated investigation under Crime No.318 of 2025 (IPC Sections 420, 406, 506 r/w 34) was lawful; petitioner agreed to cooperate. Writ petition closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition closed recording petitioner's undertaking to cooperate with investigation.

Chittiprolu Hemalatha, Vs The State of Telangana,. — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^3303I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 34633 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chiftiprolu Hemalatha, Wo. Chittiprolu Ram Prasad, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Self Employee, R/o. Door No. 3-13-109/40, Chanikyapuri Colony, Mallapur, Uppal, K.V.Ranga Reddy Distrlct - 500 076. Aadhaar Card No. 5015 0167 9245. State of Telangana.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Station House officer, Nacharam Police Station, Nacharam Medchal, Malkajgiri District.

¶13

Pottabaftula Sarojanamma, Wo.P.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged about 73 years, R/o. Door No. 3-3-56/8 Opp Noma Function Hall, Mallapur, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District - 500 076. Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

Sarabu Manish, S/o. Ramesh, Aged about 30^years, Occ. lT Employee,^Rl/o AR Residency, Narsimha Nagar, Mallapur. Uppal Mandal, Medichal, Malkajgiri District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 illegal action of the respondents^particularly illegal action of the Respondent No. 2, in interfering into civil disputes and harassing the Petitioner by frequently calling her to Police Station Nacharam,^on the behest of Respondent No.4, as illegal arbitrary un constitutional and contrary consequently direct the Respondents^particularly Respondents No.2,^{not to}

¶17

¶18

interfere into the civil disputes and not le call the Petitiont:rs frequently to Police Station Nacharam

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the c ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.2, not to interfere into the civil rlir;putes and not to call Petitioners frequently to Police Station Nacharam pending clisposal of the above writ Petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH RAMAKRISHNA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Gp FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : ---

¶24

The Court made the following: OROER

¶25

I t

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 34633 OF 2o25

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition has been hled questioning the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the civil disputes and harassing the petitioner by frequently calling to the Police Station at the instance of respondent No.4, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶30

Heard Sri Ch.Ramakrishna, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. Notice in respect of respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with.

¶31

With their consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, on the ground that the learned Assistant Goverpment Pleader basing on the instructions furnished by respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.2 is not interfering with civil disputes. However, respondent No.2 is conducting investigation in Crime No.318 of 2025, which was lodged by respondent No.4 against the pctiLioner and respondent No.3, who were arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 42O, 406 and 5O6 r 1w.34 of IPC and the respondent No.2 rs acting in accordance u.ith lau..

¶32

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that iletitioner had already submrtted explanation oo 27.1O.2O25 l,ursuelnr to notice dated 22.10.2025 issued by respondent No.2 under Scction 35(3) of Bharatiya^Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023. Horv:r.cr, the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the invcstigertion, if an1,, bclorc respondent No.2.

¶34

Recording the above submissions made by the respective parties, this Writ Petition is closed. There sherll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if a ny, shall stanci closed.

¶35

//TRUE COPYII

¶36

SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER

¶37

¶38

One CC to SRl.^{CH RAIVIAKRISHNA, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶39

lwo CCs to GP^{FOR HOME} ,High^{Court for the Statec,f Telangana.} [OUT]

¶40

Two CD Copies

PVL GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:141111202s

1 (.c '' /.'
:.."
ii .) 1g l,'l'' ?ffi
)1
t\ i),:,: "

¶46

ORDER

¶47

WP.No.34633 of 2025

¶48

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

6
L1'r\tr-

Chittiprolu Hemalatha, v. The State of Telangana,.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chittiprolu Hemalatha, 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

The State of Telangana Vs Syed Sayeed Hussain , Lamba Hussain , Lamba

State of Telangana, Rep by Pp, High Court at Hyd., Vs Konda Bala Swamy, Hanwada and Anr.

The State of Telangana Vs Sakinala Niahesh

Shaik Allabakshi Vs State of Telangana

Mohammad M. Khalid, Hyd and 2 Othrs Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Mohd.Ahteshamuddin , Asif and Others Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another