Aerva Muthyam Reddy, S/O Sathi Reddy, v. The State Of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22757 of 2014 ORDER:

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2.

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:- "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in interfering with the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner and in calling to the police station without there being any case or cause nor an accused in Crime No.119/2014, dated 04.06.2014 on the file of SHO PS, Manchala, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, RR District, Telangana State as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to all cannons of justice, consequentially direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner by calling to the police station without there being any case or cause nor an accused in Crime No.119/2014, dated 04.06.2014 on the file of SHO PS, Manchala, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, RR District Telangana State and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3.

Learned Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manchal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate.

4.

From a perusal of the said instructions, it is revealed that the 4th respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, against one P.Veera Swamy and twenty one others with regard to the land in Survey Nos.182 and 183 to an extent of Ac.20.00 situated at Agapally Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said complaint was forwarded to the 3rd respondent for investigation. On receipt of the said private complaint, a case in Crime No.119 of 2014 was registered on 04.06.2014 against

the said P.Veera Swamy and twenty one others. During the course of investigation, the complainant and witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. On 06.08.2014, A.1 to A.8 were arrested and sent to judicial custody. It is further mentioned that A.1 and A.4 in their confessional statement stated that the complainant/4th respondent is the owner of the said land, but the petitioner herein has forged and fabricated the signature of the 4th respondent. As per the confessional statement of A.1 and A.4, the case was established against the petitioner as A.5. It is also further mentioned in the written instructions that the 3rd respondent never interfered with the life and liberty of the petitioner.

5.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. ___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 11th December 2019 mar