Disposed¶48

D. Vijaya v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Apr 2025WP/8217/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of Mandamus; Article 226; police harassment; She-Team Gachibowli; Gachibowli Women Police Station; Cyberabad Commissionerate; pressure to transfer house and pay Rs.1 crore; Articles 14, 19, 21; complaint dt.19.12.2024; Chandanagar Police Station cases; IA No.1 of 2025 S.151 CPC interim relief; writ disposed at admission stage; no costs; Justice T. Vinod Kumar; High Court for the State of Telangana; D. Vijaya v. State of Telangana.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of at admission stage subject to the direction that the respondents-authorities shall not interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner except in accordance with law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶48

D. Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in harassing the Petitioners by calling them to their police station, interfering with their personal liberty, and pressurising them to transfer Petitioner No.1's house to Respondent No.7 and pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

Court's answer

The respondents-authorities are directed not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner except in accordance with law.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Notice to unofficial respondent No. 7 was not necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (W.P. No. 8217 of 2025, T. Vinod Kumar J., 04-04-2025): Wife and two sons of late D. Dasarath moved this Court under Article 226 alleging that the SHO (She-Team) and SHO, Gachibowli Women Police Station (Respondent Nos. 5 & 6) were repeatedly calling them to the police station and pressurising them, at the instance of Respondent No.7 (Mangali Manjula a.k.a D. Manjula), to transfer Petitioner No.1's house to her and pay Rs.1,00,00,000/-, in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21. The Government Pleader for Home submitted that a complaint dated 19.12.2024 of Respondent No.7 was endorsed on 20.12.2024 to the 5th respondent, who called the petitioner only to explore settlement; none being possible, parties were advised to approach the concerned authorities; four cross-cases were pending at Chandanagar Police Station. Holding that the authorities are to be directed not to interfere with the petitioner's life and liberty except in accordance with law, the Court disposed of the writ petition at admission stage, without costs, and closed miscellaneous petitions, without issuing notice to unofficial Respondent No.7.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 8217 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . D. Vijaya, W/o. Late D. Dasarath, aged about 54 Years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 10-95171A, Gopi Nagar Colony, Near lake Serilingampally,^Ranga Reddy District - 500 019, Telangana State.

¶11

.2. D. Raghu, S/o. Late Dasarath, Aged. 39 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, F/o. HNo. 1-411112, Street No.2, Gachibowli, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶12

D. Ravi, S/o. Late Dasharad, Aged.37^years, Occ. Pvt. Employee,^{Rl/o. H.No.} 13-14115, Nehru Nagar Colony, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary,^Home Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶16

2 The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500004.

¶17

J The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶18

4 The Asst. Commissioner of Police (Miyapur Division), Cyberabad^Police Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶19

5 The Station House Officer (She-Team), Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶20

6 The Station House Officer, (Gachibowli Women Police Station) Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶21

7 Mangali Manjula a.k.a D. Manjula, W/o. Late Prakash,^{Aged 32 yrs,} Occ. Housewife (Real Occ. Business), Rl/o. H.No. 2-64, Kyasaram, Patancheru (M), Sanga Reddy District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be}

¶24

a.---7 .J

¶25

pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.S and 6 in harassing the Petitioners by calling the Petitioners to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Police Station, and thereby interfering in the personal liberty of the petitioners by pressurizing the petitioners to transfer the house of the Petitioner No.1 to the Respondent No.7 and compromise with the Respondent No.7 by additionally paying amount of Rs,1 ,00,00,000/- at the behest of Respondent No. 7 as illegal, arbitrary, against to the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 not to harass the Petitioners by calling them to the 5th and 6th Respondent Police Station.

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

Petition under Section 15'1 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 Nos. 5 and 6 not to harass the Petitioners by calling them to sth and 6th Respondent Police Station pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANIRUDH SADHU

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'l to 6: GP FOR HOME

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.7:--

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI^{WSTICE T. VINODKUMAR} W.P,No . A2l7 of^2o25

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Heard learned counsel^{lor thepetitioner'learned} Government^{Pleaderfor Homeappearing for the official respondcnt} Nos.1 to 6, and with^{the consent of the learned counsel appearing} for [he respective^{parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing} and disposal^{at admissionstage.}

¶35

I{aving regard^{to the mannerof disposal of the Writ Petition} and thc naturc^{of lis involved, this Courtis of the vie$'that notice} to unolficial^{rcspondent No 7 is not necessaryfor adjudicationof} the prcsent^{Writ Petit ion.}

¶36

Sl-rorn of unnecessary^{details, lhe case of thc petitioner' in} brief, is that respondent^{Nos.5 & 6 are calling her to the police} station and^{forcing to transferher house infavour of the 7th} respondent apart^{from payingan amount of Rs'1 Crore' which} actionoftherespondents-authoritiesitiscontendedashighly illegal, arbitrary^{and in violationof Artrclcs14, 19 and 2I of the} Constitution^{of lndia.}

¶37

Per contrc., learned Government^{Pleader for Home appearing} on behalf of respondent^{Nos.1to 6 would submit that a complaint'}

¶38

¶39

r!,: -

¶40

dt.19.12.2024, has been receivcd by the l.a respondcnt from the 7th respondent; that on receiving the aforesaid complaint, as the said authority is not having power to register any crime, had endorsed the same to the 5D respondent herein on 20.12.2024; that the 5d, respondent, on receiving the albresaid complaint as forn arded by the 3.d respondent, had called the pctitioner to the 5^, respondent police station to explore the possibility as to any likelihood of settlement in the matter; and that having found that there is no scope of settlement, he had advised the parties to sort out their individual gricvanccs by approaching thc conccrned authorities.

¶41

Learned Government Pleader further submits that except exploring the possibility of likelihood of settlement in connection with the complaint reccived from the 7*\ respondent, the rc spondents-authorities ncver interfered with Lhe personal life and Iiberty of thc petitioner nor pressurized the petitioner to transfer her lrouse propcrty on to the name of the 7th rcspond<:nt or pay an amount of Rs.1 Crorc, as claimed by her.

¶42

Learned Government Pleader further submits that there are already four cases!, registered against the parties on the file of Chandanagar Police Station, which are being investigated into by

¶43

¶44

¶45

the concerned authorities; and that the^{authorities would take} further action in the said crimes registered^{in accordance with1aw.}

¶46

7 . The aforesaid submission made by the^{learnedGovernment} Pleader for Home is taken on record.

¶47

Having regard to the submissions made^{as above,and taking} notc of the fact that the 3'd respondent^{on receiving the complaint,} d.L.).g.12.2024, lodged by the^{7ft respondent, having forwarded the} same to the 5m respondent,^who as^{stated to this Court of having} called the petitioner only to explore^{the possibiliry or likelihood of} settlemcnt and noting thal there is^{no possibility ol settlement} having advised the parties to approach^{the concerned authorities} to address thcir individual^{grievances, this Court is of the view that} the rc spondents-authorities are to be^{directed not to interfere with} the life and tiberty of the petitioner,^{except in accordance with law}