Palanati Prashanth Kumar v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Writ Petition No.9436 of 2018 ORDER:

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners seeking verbatim the following relief/ s: '....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondent No.2 to 4 calling the petitioners to the 4th respondent P.S regularly and thereby threatening the petitioners to settle with unconcerned civil financial dispute by the petitioner No.1 with the respondent No.5 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to call the petitioners to the 4th respondent Police Station and not interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.' I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and of the learned Government Pleader for Home (TG) appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents 2 to 4 are threatening the petitioners to settle a civil financial dispute with the 5th respondent though they are unconcerned with such civil disputes and that, therefore, the present writ petition is filed. Learned Government Pleader, on written instructions which are placed on record, submitted as follows: - 'The 5th respondent submitted a petition, dated 21.01.2018, to the Circle Inspector of Police, Narsampet Rural, Warangal District, against the petitioners herein, inter alia, stating that the petitioners have taken Rs.8,00,000/ - from the 5th respondent on the promise of providing a job in Singareni Collieries and that they both failed to either provide a job or return the said amount and requesting to take necessary action against the

petitioners as per law. On the said petition of the 5th respondent a G.D entry was made and the 5th respondent was advised by the police officer concerned to approach an appropriate forum as he is seeking refund of the amount of Rs.8,00,000/ - from the petitioners.' He would further submit that except making a G.D entry and advising the 5th respondent accordingly, no action was taken on the petition of the 5th respondent and that the allegations made against the police officers in the writ petition are all false and invented. Having regard to the facts and submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 3 & 4 not to call to the petitioners to the police station for any enquiry unless a crime is registered in accordance with the procedure established by law.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, also shall stand closed. _____________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 02.04.2018 Vjl