Petitioners sought a writ against police for allegedly pressurising them to withdraw a complaint lodged against respondents. Police reported the complaint was investigated and closed as civil in nature with notice under Section 157(2)(b) CrPC. The court dismissed the decade-old petition as infructuous.
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.
[34861
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHESTATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAYOF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNAREDDY
WRIT PETITION NO:39491OF 2015
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition underArticle 226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filedtherewith, the High court may be
pleased to issue a Writ order or directionparticularly in t re nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of therespondent No.3in cztl ing the petitioners to the P.S. Habeeb Nagar and makingthem sit for hours toge lher and threatening and pressurizing them to settle thematter with the reslr rndentsStoSand withdraw the complaint dt 13-07- 2015madeagainst hem othenrriise the respondent No.3 would implicatethem in falsecriminal cas: ; as arbitra ry, illegal, unlawful, withoutjurisdiction and,in violationo of Article 21 rf the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondentNo.3not to h;r ass the petitioner by calling them to Police Station.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 50929 0F 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in thecrr ;umstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of thepetition,the HighCourt mrt be pleasedto direct the o respondent No.3 not to harass thepetitioner, threaterland pressurize them to settle the matter against the respondents5 to Iby with J awing the complaint dt.l3-07-20'15 against them as the sameis withoutjurisdicticrpendingdisposal of the main writpetition. in the interest ofjustice.
l.A. NO: 2 OF 201s(WP MP. NO: 50930 OF 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Courtmit ' be pleasedto direct the respondent No.4 to register the case on thecomplaint rthe petitioner dt.1 3- 07-2015 against the respondents 5 to 8 under thepr rvisions ofCriminal Procedure Code.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MOHD GHULAM HUSSAIl{NONEAPPEARED)
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI SRIDHAR BH -t/ANAGlRl, AGP FOR HOME
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.S to 8:---
The Court made the following: ORDER
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITIRAMAKRISHITA REDDY
WRIT PBTITION No.39491 of 2015
ORDER
I{eard Sri Sridhai: Bhuvanagiri, learnedAssistant (]overnment Pieader for Home. None appeared on behalf of the petltroners
?r. This Writ petition ''vas hledin ihe year 2O15.The iearned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Horne furnisheda copy of the written instructions issued bythe SubInspector ofPclice, SaidabaC Poiice Station,Cyberabad,ra'he::einit has ireenstated by the Police that after thccomplaint dated13.O7.2015 made by the petitioners, the Policehad conducted investigationaldalso closcd the same asbeing 'civi1 innature' ani thatthe petitioners were advised to approachthe competentcivil coui't for redressal of theirgrievalce.Further, anoticedated i8.12.2015 under Sectii'ei57(2) ib)of the Codeoi Criminai
tr
VRKR. J rp 1919 i 2(,r i5
Proccdurc.,t,as sent t,,), the Police to the petitioners ,. registered post inforini;-rg them th;ri it is a tor-r ccgnizabir: I I :nce and as such FIR r,,as not registered.
As a seouel, the niscellaneous peiitions pcr- r ing, if an.y,
shall stanci ciosed
SD/. A.JAYASREE ,'\s I srnrr REGTSTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
TJ PSK if
f
HIGH COURT
DATED:0410912025
ORDER
WP.No.39491 of 2015
I
1\ i , STAIE
()-
a) t ! iNN t$2t
t) t. .,r
t.,t
-./
.-:..-.--:.-
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONAS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
@ p1 rJ''*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the police action in summoning and pressurising the petitioners to settle and withdraw their complaint was arbitrary and unlawful
Whether the writ petition survives given the complaint had been investigated and closed as civil in nature
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Mir Abid Ali Khan
Mir Farooq Ali Khan
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City
The Station House Officer, Police Station Habeebnagar, Hyderabad
The Station House Officer, Police Station Saidabad, Hyderabad
Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
