Maloth Mangilal v. The State Of Telangana,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 25.02.2019 Between:

Maloth Mangilal s/o. Lachu, Aged 42 years, Occu: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No.1-58, Nanda Panchayat, Chunchupally Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem district.

.....Petitioner and The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.

.....Respondents The Court made the following:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

Petitioner alleges that Sub-Inspector of Police, Chunchupally Police Station, arrayed as 5th respondent, calling the petitioner to the Police Station regularly, torturing him to settle the dispute with the 6th respondent by threatening to foist false cases. It appears that petitioner and 6th respondent have disputes regarding the property to an extent of Ac.0.03 guntas in Sy.No.145/5 of Chunchupally Revenue Village, Kothagudem District. Petitioner alleges that with reference to this property, 5th respondent interfering at the instance of 6th respondent to compel the petitioner to settle the dispute with the 6th respondent. 2.

According to learned Government Pleader, based on instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chunchupally, dated 25.02.2019, 6th respondent lodged a complaint on 08.02.20219 alleging that he and his co-brother have land to an extent of Ac.0.03 guntas in the above survey number and that the land belongs to him, and in this regard some word duel took place. On receipt of complaint, GD entry was made at Sl.No.3 of page no.79 dated 08.02.2019. The Sub-Inspector of Police called the petitioner through his official mobile no.7901162984 on the petitioner mobile number calling him to Police Station. Having enquired with the petitioner, the SubInspector of Police was of the view that it is a civil dispute and accordingly, 6th respondent was informed to avail civil law remedy. The Sub-Inspector of Police would submit that except calling the petitioner to the Police Station on 08.02.2019 for the purpose of

enquiry, the respondents did not interfere with the civil disputes as alleged by the petitioner.

3.

In view of categorical assertion of Sub-Inspector of Police that no further steps are taken consequent to the receipt of complaint as contents of complaint, per se, found to be a civil in nature, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner does not survive. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there is no expression of opinion on merits. It is always open to petitioner as well as unofficial respondent no.6 to avail appropriate remedy as available in law. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 25.02.2019 kkm

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 25.02.2019 kkm