Disposed

Ashamgari.Ramreddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2025WP/6910/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged alleged police harassment of being summoned daily to the police station in connection with two crimes. One crime was closed as false with a final report; a charge sheet was filed in the other. The court directed that police not interfere with petitioners' liberty or summon them except per law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police not to interfere with petitioners' personal life and liberty or summon them without tenable cause, except in strict accordance with law; no costs.

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

¶1

13217 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ashamgari.Ramreddy, s/o Late Narayanareddy, Aged about 6g years, occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.3-26, Badang pet village, s"ioornrgar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

Ashamgari srinivas Reddy, s/o. A.Ram Reddy, Aged about 46 years, occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.3-26, Badang pet Village, saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

Ashamgari simhareddy, s/o. A.Ram Reddy, Aged about 43 years, occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.3-26, Badang pet village, Siroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

Ashamgari srikanth Reddy, s/o.A. Ram Reddy, Aged about 34 years, occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.3-26, Badang pet Village, Saioornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

A. Janga Reddy, s/o Late Narayanareddy, Aged about.63 years, occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.3-26, Badang pet Viliage, slroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Petitioner No.1 to 5 are represented Uy its GpA Holder Jonnada Dharmender, S/o.J. Balraj Aged about 35 yeari, Occ. Agriculture R/o. H.No.18-5-3G6, Veernagar, Atiabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

Ayli Madhavi, wo. A.Madhu, Aged about 39 years, occ. House wife, R/o. Plot.No. 12 and 13, Maruthi Nagar, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, RR.District.

¶14

santhoshi rhakur, wo. Thakur Manoj Singh, Aged about 34 years, occ. House wife, R/o. H.No. 1 8-4-355,356, Aliabad,^.Hyderabd

¶15

K.chandrashekar, s/o. K. Agamaiah, Aged ioout 36 years, occ. Bank employee R/o.H. No. 1 8-3-sog/1, shivaganla Nagar, chathrinaka, Uppuguda, Hyderabad

¶16

srisailam Yadav, s/o.K. Jangaiah, Aged about 4g years, occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 18-3-463t 1/53, Shivaji Nagar, Rajanna bavi, Hyderabd-500053.

¶17

l0.A.Krishnaveni, wo. A.Ramu, Aged about 30 years, dcc. House wife, R/o. H.No. 1 8-5-800, out side laldawvaza, HyderabaO-SOOOSg.

¶18

11.P. Krishna, s/o. P Badrappa, Aged about 40 years, occ. private Employee, R/o.H.No. 17 -2-313, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad-500059.

¶19

12.4. Venkatesh, s/o.A.Pochaiah, Age! about s2 years, occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1 8-3-654 I 1 lg I 1, Hamambowli, Laldanivaza, Fiyderabad-500053.

¶20

13.N.shivkumar, s/o. N. Krishna, Aged bout 41 years, occ. private Employee, R/o.H.No.4 -28-19, Atmasguda, Ranga Reddy District-500059

¶21

14.Nune. lianveer, S/o.N.Balraj, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/ o. H.No. 184- 17, Gandhinagar, Engine Bowli, Faluknama, Hyderabad-SOOOS3

¶22

l5.S.Rishitlumar, S/o. N.Ahsok, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Private employee, R/o.H.No.18-3-463111118, Shivajinagar, Rajannabowli, Hyderabad-500053-.

¶23

RavulaF,ally Hanumaiah, S/o.Venkaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired employere, R/o. 1 6- 1 1 -2Ol 129, Saleemnagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad-500036.

¶24

.....PETITIONERS

¶25

AND

¶26

1 . The State of Telangana, The State of Telangana Rep by its principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶27

The Conrmissioner of Police,, Cyberabad, Rachakonda police Commisr;onarate, RR. District.

¶28

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissionarate Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶29

The Station House Officer, Meerpet, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

¶30

N. Venkernna, S/o. Ananthaiah, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Retired employee, R/o. H.N,r. 12-471A, RK. Puram colony, L.B. Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

¶31

N. Srinivas, S/o. Venkanna, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 124714, RK Puram colony, L.B. Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

¶32

Shivared,ly, S/o. Not known, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 124714, RK Puram colony, L.B. Nagar Municipatity, Ranga Reddy District.

¶33

.....RESPONDENTS

¶34

Petition tJnder 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 issue any order or orders, direction, writ or writs more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 to 4 in calling the petitioners to the office of the respondent No. 3 and 4 everyday and asking to sit in the police station morning to evening at the instance of the respondent No. 5 to 7 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia in the interest of justice,.

¶35

z1 3

¶36

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 and 4 not to call to the petitioners to their offices pending disposal of the atrove writ petition interest of justice of equity.

¶37

Counsel for the ]tetitioners : SRt CH.JANARDHAN REDDY

¶38

counsel for the Respondent Nos.{ to 4 : sRl D.PRADEEP, AGp FoR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 7 : --

¶39

The Gourt made the following ORDER

¶40

I'HE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT P ETI TION No.6910 OF 2018

¶41

o DER:

¶42

This V/rit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia

¶43

seeking the frrllowing relief/s:-

¶44

"...to r.ssue any order or orders, direction, writ or w ts more padiculady one in the natu,e of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in callting the petitioners to the ofiice of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 everyday and askng to sit in the police station morning to evening at the instance of respondent A/os. 5 to 7 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural i/6,tice and also violative of Atticles 19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia in the interest ot^justice of equity and pass..."

¶45

Heard Mr. Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶46

Learnerl counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in allegedly sun moning the petitioners every day and compelling them to remain at the police station for prolonged hours at the instance of the unofficial respondents. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions frorn this Court to restrain such alleged harassment and interference.

¶47

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that tl-,e petitioners' presence was secured only for the purposey/ enquiry in conrlection with Crime Nos. 116 of 2018 and 118 of 2018. The allegation that the petitioners were being summoned without reason and

¶48

¶49

I{TR,J WP_No.691O_2O18

¶50

made to sit in the police station throughout the day is, therefore, without any substance. lt is further submitted that, after due investigation, Crime No. 116 of 2018 was closed as "false" on 24.04.2018, and a final report to that effect was filed before the vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. ln crime No. 118 of 201a, a charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 1Z2g of 2o1g before the same Court, where it is presently pending trial. Hence, it is contended that the allegations made by the petitioners are unfounded and devoid of merit, and accordingly, the learned Assistant Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶51

I have carefully perused the material available on record.

¶52

Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioners and the explanation offered by the respondent authorities concerning the pendency of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, and keeping in view the limitations on police authority even during investigation, it is hereby directed that the respondent police authorities shall not interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners, and shall not summon them without tenable cause, except in strict accordance with law and only upon adherence to due process.

¶53

¶54

¶55

NTR,J WP_Ito.69 1O_2O la

¶56

With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There

¶57

shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

SD'.T. SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SA BS

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secreta ry, Home Department Buildings, State of Telangi:na at Hyderabad

¶66

The Comm issioner of Police, Cyberabad, Rachakonda police Commi:;sonarate, RR.District.

¶67

The Asr;istant commissioner of^police, Rachakonda police commissionarate .^{Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy Diskict.}

¶68

The Station House Offi-cer, Me6rpet, Rachakonda police Commissionerate, Ranga lleddy District.

¶69

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶70

One CC to SRI CH.JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies

¶71

HIGH COIURT

¶72

DATED:06/1 112025

¶73

1HE !,
C) 1 6 nnR 20?[
t
t

tTttr{.l

WP.No.691 l of 201 8

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

Cs,
s ,rb

Ashamgari.Ramreddy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashamgari.Ramreddy, 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

B.Sharma , Bhanwar Lal Byas, Vs The State of Telangana

K Nivedita Vs The State of Telangana thru its Principal Secretary

Sri. Sanjay Angotri Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Vadija Tirupathi Vs The State Of Telangana

Cherukuri Gopinath Vs State of Telangana

K.Mahipal Reddy Vs State of Telangana