Writ petition alleging police threatened a petitioner to attend the station at a finance company agent's behest. Police denied any calls or harassment in their counter; the court disposed of the petition recording those submissions, with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
i
[3486 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
wRlT PETITION NO: 38242 OF 2015
Between:
Velivela Venkata Jaya Babu, S/o. Nanchari Rao, aged 52 years Occ. Private employee, Rl,/o. Mettuguda Tukaramgate, Secunderabad Hyderabad
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewittr, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particu{ady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respordent no.5 police in threatening thepetitioner to come to hispolice station bygiving threatening calls to the petitioner without having any complaint under the influence of the agent of the respondenls 6 and 7 namely Vinod and also d irected topay the amount to the
/ /
/
respondents 6 and 7 is as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles, 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner in any way without having any complaint under the influence of the agent Mr. Vinod.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 49218 OF 2O1s)
Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in the circumstances statdd in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no,5 police not to give any threatening calls to the petitioner without having any complaint in collusion with the respondents 6 and 7 and their agent Mr. Vlnod, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.SRINIVAS, ASST.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAXRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITIOiI No.38242 of 2OI5
ORDER:
Heard Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 5. However, tlrere is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
I \
//
2
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
., a ,- SD/- U.SUDHA ASS ANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
ER
To,
BSK TKS AT
HIGH COURT
DATED:0410912025
ORDER
WP.No.38242 of 2015
J
O
i) 11 FtB zffi \o
:
..,<br>^--..
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
r{
t"
,^S*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether police respondent No.5 threatened and summoned the petitioner without any complaint under the influence of a finance company's agent?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Velivela Venkata Jaya Babu
The State of Telangana
The Director General of Police, Telangana State
The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kukatpally
The Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station
Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
