Disposed

P. Parasmal Jain v. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Basheerbagh

Telangana HC2 Sept 2025WP/37268/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police harassment of their Secunderabad jewellery shop during investigation of FIR No.378/2015. The State stated investigation concluded with charge sheet, acquittal of A1 and A2, and Lok Adalat settlement for A3. The Court directed police to follow due process of law and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing police to follow due process of law; no order as to costs.

P. Parasmal Jain Vs The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁶ I

¶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 VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶6

.Between:

¶7

P. Parasmal Jain, Son of late Sri Premraj Jain Aged about 66^{years,Occupation} Business, Shop No. 7-2-759, Pot Market, Secunderabad.^{2.VimalchandJain son of} Parasmal Jai,'aged about 39 years, Occupation Business Shop^{No.7-2-759, Pot} Market, Secunderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Basheerbagh,^Hyderabad-

¶11

The Sub lnspector of Police I, Task Force^{East Zone, Near City Civil Court,} Hyderabad.

¶12

The Sub lnspector of Police ll, Task Force East^{Zone, Near City Civil Court,} Hyderabad.

¶13

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Home Department,} Hyderabad.

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 lssue a writ or order or direction more^particularly one in the^{nature of} writ of mandamus declaring the action of the^{respondentsare illegal, improper,} irregular and against the^principles of natural^{justice coupled with the against} letter and spirt of the criminal^procedure code and the^{guidelines issued by Apex} Court in DK Basu Case reported in AtR^{1997 SupremeCourt 610 and} memorandum RC No. 29531C4199 dated 07-06-1999,^{and directionsit was} mentioned in WP No. 35584/1998 dated 14-02-2001^{passed by the Honourable} High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh^{Hyderabad, consequentlydirect the} respondents to follow the due^{process of law as contemplated undercriminal}

¶16

procedure codr: and further direct the respondents not to interrere witn the petitioners busi,ess without forowing the due process of raw.

¶17

Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerj in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased direct the respondents; not to harass the petitioners business without foltowing the due process of law as contemplated under the criminar procedure code pending disposal of the vurit petition.

¶18

COUNSEI fOr thE PEtitiONEr : SRI A.SAMIR KUMAR REDDY

¶19

COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENTS: SRI B-HUVANAGIRI SRIDHAR, ASST. GP FOR HOME

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

(-. !\

¶22

HOITOURABLE SRI JI'STICE VAITITI RAMAIRISHIIA RTDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.37268 of 2O15

¶24

(-lr tItrSTI

¶25

Heard Sri Bhuvanagiri Sridhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner approached this Honble Court questioning the action of the respondents in interfering into their business activity as illegal, improper and against the principles of natural justice.

¶26

The respondent No.3 had filed counter in the present writ petition by specifically stating that FIR No.378 of 2015 was registered by the Osmania Universit5r Police Station and the suspects involved in the said crime are notorious offenders of Chain Snatching and House Thefts by breaking open the locks and were involved in more than 2OO cases of various police stations. It is further stated that the offenders are habitual criminals and disposes all the stolen property such as gold ornaments and that through credible sources, tJre movement of tJle accused was noticed on jewellery shops of Pot Market, Secunderabad and in that connection oral enquiries were made at some of the suspected jewellery shops, likewise on credible

(

VRK& J w^37268201s

informatio:n received by the Task Force Police, they visited the petitioner's shop to elicit t.l.e information with regard to stolen properly :rlleged to have been stolen in their shop by the accused. l.t is further stated that the police were discharging their dutir:s legitimately and never harassed the writ petitioner as alleged by him.

¶31

The learned Assistant Government Pleader informed t]rat in pursuancr: of registration of the said crime No. 378 of 2oLs, which wa:s registered u/s 392,411 of Indian^penal Code, 1860, an investigation was already conducted by the police and charge sheet was also laid before the concerned court, which was numberecl as c.c.No.544 of 2016 on the file of tvth Additional Chief l[etropolitan Magistrate, Nampaily, Hyderabad. subsequently, A1 and A2 were acquitted vide judgment dated o5.L2.2o1.6 and in so far as A3 is concerrred, he was absconding at that time, however, subsequently, he appeared before the court, and the matter was also settled before the Lok Adalat on 08.o2.20tao.

¶32

¶33

VRK& J wp_)7268-0ts

¶34

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that it is suffice to direct tlle police to follow the due process of law. With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be

¶35

no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶37

shall stand closed.

¶38

SD'. U.SUDHA ISTANT REG

¶39

/,TRUE COPY"

¶40

To,

¶41

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad

¶42

OFFICER Hyderabad.

¶43

The Sub lnspector of Police l,^{Task Force East Zone,NearCity Civil Court,} Hyderabad.

¶44

The Sub tnspector of Police^{l!, Task Force EastZone,NearCity Civil Court,} Hyderaba

¶45

The Principal Secretary, Home^{Department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad:}

¶46

One CC to SRIA.SAMIR KUMAR^{REDDY,Advocate.} [OPUCI

¶47

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High^{Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. IOUTI

¶48

Two CD Copies.

BSK

PSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:02109l,2025

,''R TIIE S tA
I 2 J JAil 2026 ?
<br>.,
:.- -.:,:- --''

¶55

ORDER

¶56

WP.No.37268 of 2015

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION wrTHou]i cosTs

¶58

r|1
v

P. Parasmal Jain v. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Basheerbagh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Parasmal Jain v. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Basheerbagh

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

Botumanchi Manohara, Warangal Dist Vs Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyd and 2 Others

Sunke Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana, rept. by Principal Secretary-

Shaik Sadiq, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Arshia Mohammad, W/o Abdul Subhan, Vs The State of Telangana Rep.by The Priniciple Secretary

Dr. Anita Chandna, Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Anwar, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary