Palwai Laxmi Vs the State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Palwai Laxmi Vs the State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No.2 directed to consider the complaint dated 21.11.2025; jurisdictional police stations directed to provide police aid to the petitioner and her family members during their visit to Hyderabad, Hanamakonda and Mahabubabad from 24.12.2025 to 04.01.2026 on a need and necessity basis; miscellaneous applications, if any pending, stood closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether adequate police protection/police aid should be provided to the petitioner and her family members during their visit to Hyderabad, Hanamakonda and Mahabubabad (Telangana State) between 23.12.2025 and 04.01.2026, in view of the alleged threatening telephone calls by Janga Raghava Reddy. +1 more

Court's answer

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, and since the petitioner's husband has received threatening calls from Janga Raghava Reddy and, in view of the fact that the petitioner and her family members are visiting Hyderabad, Hanamakonda and Mahabubabad (from 23.12.2025 to 04.01.2026), the Court deemed it appropriate to act on the petition.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's husband's complaint dated 21.11.2025.

Key takeaways

The jurisdictional police stations were directed to provide police aid to the petitioner and her family members during their visit to Hyderabad, Hanamakonda and Mahabubabad from 24.12.2025 to 04.01.2026, on a need and necessity basis (start date per para 9 continuation at line 49; end date and basis at line 50).ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.; order dated 24.12.2025) disposed of Writ Petition No.39457 of 2025 (Palwai Laxmi v. State of Telangana & Director General of Police) at the admission stage itself, with the consent of both sides. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the complaint dated 21.11.2025 (acknowledged as petition No.DGP/COORD/251125/09737) and to provide police protection to her and her family during their visit to Hyderabad, Hanamakonda and Mahabubabad (23.12.2025 to 04.01.2026), alleging threatening telephone calls (21.11.2025, about 3:24 PM) from one Janga Raghava Reddy — described as a believed rowdy-sheeter unconnected to the family — from Mobile No.9676809999, which she linked to her son's matrimonial dispute. The Government Pleader (Home), placing on record the Commissioner of Police, Warangal's instructions, submitted that the complaint had been forwarded to the SHO, Subedari Police Station; a GD entry (petition No.DGP/COORD/257125/09737 as printed; dated 04.12.2025 as printed) was made and enquiry conducted; the complainant did not produce evidence of the threat calls; CDR analysis indicated the husband himself had called the alleged caller thrice on 27.11.2025 with both located outside Subedari PS jurisdiction; no further threats or physical approach occurred; and no specific order from any competent court existed. Petitioner's senior counsel (Sri Harender Pershad) countered with a photocopy of call details contending missed calls followed by connected calls during which dire threats were made, and that the investigating officer had not enquired into Janga Raghava Reddy. Finding that the petitioner's husband had received threatening calls and that the family would be visiting Telangana, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to consider the complaint dated 21.11.2025 and directing jurisdictional police stations to provide police aid from 24.12.2025 to 04.01.2026 (a day later than sought) on a need-and-necessity basis; miscellaneous pending applications were closed and no costs were ordered. Source text is heavily OCR-degraded; corrupted strings are reproduced verbatim in evidence spans and normalised only in prose.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Alleged threatening call: on 21.11.2025 at about 3:24 PM, one Janga Raghava Reddy — described as a believed rowdy-sheeter unconnected to the petitioner and her family — called the petitioner's husband from Mobile No.9676809999 and, during the call, abused and threatened him and his son.¶37
Prior proceeding
A complaint (date printed as '76.12.2025', apparently 16.12.2025) arising out of the petitioner's son's matrimonial dispute was also filed before the SHO, Defence Colony, Delhi.¶37
Prior proceeding
Email complaint: petitioner's husband lodged a complaint (printed '21.77.2025', i.e., 21.11.2025) through E-mail with respondent No.2 requesting action against Janga Raghava Reddy; petitioner asserted no action had been taken.¶37
Prior proceeding
Per instructions of the Commissioner of Police, Warangal placed on record by the GP (Home), the petitioner's husband's complaint dated 21.11.2025 was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Subedari Police Station, Warangal Commissionerate for necessary action and report.¶39
Prior proceeding
On that complaint a GD entry (petition No.DGP/COORD/257125/09737 as printed; the prayer cites DGP/COORD/251125109737) dated 04.12.2025 (printed '04.72.2025') was made and an enquiry was conducted.¶42
Prior proceeding
During the enquiry the petitioner's husband was requested to produce evidence regarding the threat calls but did not produce the same.¶42
Prior proceeding
The enquiry officer obtained the Call Data Record (CDR) of the alleged caller, which reportedly revealed that on 27.11.2025 (printed '27.77.2025') the petitioner's husband had himself called the alleged caller thrice (times printed as '75:-1.8:32, L5:23:72 and 15:24:43').¶42
Prior proceeding
Enquiry further indicated that at the time of the calls the petitioner's husband was at Delhi and the alleged caller was at Plot No.20, Sy.No.686, near the Agricultural Market Yard, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District — both areas falling outside the jurisdiction of Subedari Police Station, Hanumakonda Division, Warangal Commissionerate.¶42
Prior proceeding
GP (Home) further submitted that, as per the enquiry, from 21.11.2025 to date the petitioner's husband had neither received threat calls from the alleged caller nor had the alleged caller physically approached/threatened the petitioner or her family members.¶43
Prior proceeding
GP (Home) also submitted that the respondent authorities had not received any specific order from any competent court with respect to the police protection sought.¶43
Prior proceeding
The CDR point was restated by the GP (Home): on 27.11.2025 the petitioner's husband only had called the alleged caller thrice (times printed '15:18:32, 75:23:72 and 15:24:43').¶43
Prior proceeding
Counter-submission of petitioner's senior counsel (in-court submission, not an administrative step): he produced a photocopy of call details of 27.11.2025 contending the husband first got missed calls from phone No.9676809999 and thereafter called that number, that Janga Raghava Reddy received the call and threatened the husband and son with dire consequences, and that the investigating officer had not enquired into Janga Raghava Reddy.¶45