Malipatel Santhamma Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^'1688 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Malipatel Santhamma, Wo. tvlalipatel Somireddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife,

¶9

Malipatel Narendar Reddy, S/o. trilalipatel Somireddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶10

Both are Rl/o. H.No.3-12, Peddaporla Village, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District, PIN - 50931 1.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

2 The Superintendent of Police, Narayanpet District.

¶15

3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narayanpet, Narayanpet District.

¶16

4 The Circle lnspector of Police, Makthal Police Station, Narayanpet District.

¶17

5 The Sub-lnspector of Police, Makthal Police Station, Makthal Mandal, Narayanpet District.

¶18

6 The Sub-lnspector of Police, Utkoor Police Station, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents in calling the petitioners to the police station time and again to admit their involvement in the alleged offence of forging of the^{patta passbooks} and thereby availing crop loans from the State Bank of lndia, Utkoor Branch, Utkoor lt/landal, Narayanpet District,

¶21

as illegal, null and void and consequently direct the respondents not to involve into the personal liberty and right to live of the petitioners which are guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

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 respondents not to call the petitioners time and again to the police station for admission of involvement of the petitioners in the alleged fabricating of the patta passbooks and avarling the loan from the State Bank of lndia, Utkoor Branch, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District, pending finalization of the writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J. KANAKAIAH, REPRESENTING SRI NARENDAR JALLI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

IN THtr IIIGI{ COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶28

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.1688 of 2026

¶30

DATII: 03.02.2026

¶31

Between:

¶32

Malipatel Santhamma and another.

¶33

...Petitioner

¶34

ANT)

¶35

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others.

¶36

. . .Respondents

¶37

ORDER

¶38

This writ petition is flled seeking following reliefl

¶39

"...issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in calling the petitioners to the police station time and again to admit their involvement in the alleged offence of forging of the patta passbooks and thereby availing crop loans from the Stats Bank of India, Utkoor Branch, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District as illegal, null and void and consequently direct the respondents not to involve into the personal liberty and right to live of the

¶40

--I

¶41

2

¶42

petitioners which are guaranteed under the

¶43

Constilution of India .. -"

¶44

Heard Sri .l.Kanakaiah, leamed Senior Counsel, representing

¶45

leamed counsel for the petitioner on record and learned Assistant Government Plcader for I-lome appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

¶46

Leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly the husband ol petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, namely Malipatet Somi Reddy, has been arrayed as Accused No.6 in F.l.R. Nos.3 and 9, dated 06.01 .2022, onthe file of Utkoor Police Station, Narayanpet Mandal, for the offences punishable under Sections 409,411 ,420,467,468 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶47

3.1. He would further submit that the said crimes were registered based on a complaint lodged by Mazhar Ali, Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal, and that an enquiry is stated to have been conducted in respect ofthe said offences. Though, the offences are under investigation against the husband of petitioner No.l and father of petitioner No.2, the petitioners are being repeatedly called

¶48

-)

¶49

to the police station by respondent No.5 under the guise of investigation, without any authority of law r,vherein the present petitioners have neither been arrayed as accused nor cited as witnesses in the said FIRs. Such acts are being carried out with the sole intention of harassing the petitioners and exerting undue pressure upon them, so as to influence the accused to confess to the offences allegedly registered in the said FIRs.

¶50

3.2. It is submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 7 have exercised

¶51

powers not vested in them, and they have resorted to illegal acts by summoning the petitioners to the police station without issuing any notice as contemplated under law. The said actions are arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles I 4, I 9 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Stating so, he would seek to pass appropriate orders.

¶52

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home basing on the instructions of respondent No.4, submits that enquiry is under progress and in that process the petitioners are been sought to provide information available with them, except that no illegal action*}?S been taken by official respondents and in case,^{if the}

¶53

1

¶54

petitioners'^presence is^{required, he would submitthat necessary} notice as contemplated^{under law would be issued to the petitioners} seeking inforrnation^{thereinand the officialrespondentswouldnot} resofl to any kind of illegal actior.r against the^petitioners except under due process of law. Stating so, he would seek to^pass appropriate orders.

¶55

Having heard the leamed counsel for the petitioners and the leamed Assistant Government Pleader lor flome, and upon perusal of the material placed before this Court, including the written instructions submitted on behalf of respondent No.4, it is stated therein that the Investigating Officer had called the petitioners to the police station and that, instead of appearing before the police station, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition, as reflected in paragraph No.3 of the said written instructions. However, a perusal of thc same clearly reveals that the petitioners were called to the police station without there being any authority of law. Such action on the part of the lnvestigating Officer is illegal, arbitrary, and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

¶56

5

¶57

Accordingly, this Court^{deems it appropriate to directthe}

¶58

official respondents^{not to cail the petitioners to the policestation} without following^{due process of law and in case, if anysuch kind} of action^{is being undertakenby the officialrespondents,the said} action would be^{viewed seriously by this Court.}

¶59