ALLADI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-02-13. ALLADI KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3183 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 41 28 0F 2025 Between: ALLADI KRISHNA MURTHY, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Cirizen, F/o H. No. 2-7-1 197, 9enior Kanaka ourqj Cttony, viaoeiiilv h""'j, Hanamkonda, Warangal City. ... PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF TqL4ryq+N. A, principat Rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderaba'd. ' 2. THE COMMISSTONER OF pOLtCE_ potice Head euarters, Opp. pubtic Gardens, Hanamkonda, Warangal iity. 3. THE srATloN HousE oFFrcER, porice subedari Station, Hanamkonda. 4. POGAKULA MADHAVI, Wo Srinivas, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o H. No 1-7-8Bst1t2o, Nandhi Hiils, Huiter nolA, ff-a'nimf<b;J", w"-ir"gii 5. POGAKULA SRINIVAS, S/o not known, Aged. Major, Occ. Business, Rl/o " H. No.
1 -7-885/1 /20, Nandhi Hiils, Huntei n"oaO, t-tiiriinX"rAr, Wirir'grt 6. POGAKULA BHARATH, S/o p. srinivas, Aged about 27 yearc, occ. Business, Rl/o H. No. 1 -7-B Bst 1 t2o, Na ndhi Hi[s, n unt6r noio, Hiil;l";da W;tr&l 7. THUMMETI LAVANYA, W/o Nagaraju, Aged- about 32 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H. No. 6-69/3, Hasanparthy Vittag'e anE Mandat, H;6;;;dnda iiiririJtl' ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the 'oe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High'cJurt may pleased to pass an order, direction or writ more particularly orie in the natuie or writ of mandamus decraring the high-handed and illegal action of the officiar Respondents more particurarry Respondent No. 3 in frJquenily summoning ihe Petitioner to the Police station thereby threatening him with dire consequJnces saying that to settle the matter with the unofficiir Respondent Nos.
4 io 7 by involving in civil Disputes as iflegat, arbitrary and vioraiive of the principres of natural justice and consequen y direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to summon the Petitioner to the Police Station while threatening him to settle the matter involving in r;ivil matters with the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondent No. 3 not to SUMMON the Petitioner to the Police Station i. e. , Respondent No. 3 Police Station, at the instigation of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. PANDAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. SRINIVAS, ASST. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI B. VIIAYSEN REDDY IUSTICE WRIT PETITION No. 4128 OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.
3 - the Station House Officer, Subedari Police Station, in frequently summoning hirn to the Police Station and threatening him with dire consequences to settle the disputes with respondents No. 4 I to 7, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. I 2. Mr. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, basing on the written instructions dated I I . 02. 2025, submitted that pursuant to the complaint dated 11. 12. 2024 lodged by respondent No. 5 with respondent No. 3 against the petitioner, an entry was made in the General diary and enquiry was caused. During the course of enquiry, it was revealed that the matter pertains to land and the dispute is purely civil in nature, as such, the complaint lodged by respondent No. 5 was closed as 'civil in nature' and the same was intimated to the petitioner and respondent No. 5. It is submitted that except conducting enquiry in the complaint lodged by respondent No. 5, there was no interference by respondent No.
3 with the personal life and liberty ol the petitioner as alleged in this writ petltlon .. , No'5 was todged by respondent 3. As it is stated that the complaint closedas'civilinnature'andthereisnointerferencebyrespondentNo'3 recording the same' life and liberty of the petitioner' with the personal be no order as to costs' is disposed of' There shall this writ petition in ii any' pending applications' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous stand closed' this writ Petition. USHAMBA CH. NAGABH SD/. P. TANT R EGISTRAR AS SI COPY// c /TTRUE \ BN BS d. HIGH COURT DATED:1 310212025 '( 6c Sf4; e ( e 22lIl 2il25 . lrr, ORDER t oF r:o spAl ct' WP. No. 4128 c,f 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cgq'u '{rr
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.