M.Srinivas v. The State Of Telengana

[ 32e6 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 12930 OF 2023 Between:

[\r1.Srinivas, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o. H.No.9-1 16, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Hyderabad, Presently residing at H.No.F.No.8-303, Sector 42 Nerul(W), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra State. ...PETITIONER AND

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

2. The Station House Officer, Nallakunta, Hyderabad District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF I\4ANDAMUS, thereby the Respondent No.2 is threatening the petitioner under guise of the enquiry without there being any crime against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 not to threatening the petitioner under the guise of enquiry without there being any crime against the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 Respondent.No.2 not to threaten the petitioner under guise of the enquiry without there being any crime against the petitioner, pending the above wdt petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJESHWAR PAt{UGANTI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY Writ Petition No.1293O of 2o23 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief , viz., "... ... to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in threatening the petitioner under guise of the enqutry without there being any crime against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural jwtice; and consequently, to direct Respondent No.2 not to threaten the petitioner under the guise of enquiry without there being any crime against the petitioner ... ..."

2.

Heard Mr. Rajeshwar Panuganti, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, Jor the respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 2"d respondent is repeatedly calling the petitioner to the Police Station under the guise of enquiry though there being no crime registered against the petitioner, and therefore prays this Court to restrain the 2.d respondent

I CVBR,,] wp'12930_2o2) not to call the petitioner under the guise of conducting enqulry.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pieader for Home, appearing for the respondents, contended that one Smt. Sunitha (a family member of the petitioner) has lodged a complaint against petitioner before the 2"a respondent; there are disputes between petitioner and the said Smt. Sunitha; in those circumstances, to make a pima facie enquiry, the 2nd respondent has summoned the petitioner to the Police Station for investigation; the investigation conducted by the 2nd respondent revealed that disputes between petitioner and the said Smt. Sunitha are purely civil in nature, and subsequently the complaint filed by the said Smt. Sunitha had also been closed as investigation was completed;

thereafter, the petitioner was not ca-lled to the Police Station for any other purpose; if the presence of petitioner is still required, the respondents would follow the procedure laid down in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; and therefore, contended that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

..1..

CVBR,J wP_1291o_2o21 5.

In view of above submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, this Court is of the opinion that since the investigation has been closed by the !"4 respondent and petitioner's presence is no longer required for conducting further investigation, no further orders are necessarJi to be passed in the writ petition and hence the same is closed. Accordingly,. the writ petition is closed. No costs.

6.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I sEcrloN 8.r,".* ,TRUE COPY// To'" 1. On" CC to SRI RAJESHWAR PANUGANTI,.Advocate t-OJVCl i. iffi cc. t" e i ror[ noHtle, High court forthe state of relangana' at Hyderabad. [OUTI

3. Two CD CoPies PSK, GJP \', --s

HIGH COURT DATED:0510612023 STATE o v t t lu\\NB ,i;

ORDER

q :)oo WP.No.12930 of 2023 ,/ ip CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.