Telangana High Court
Mr. Y. P. Lingam vs The State Of Telangana on 9 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.7087 of 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 09.03.2026
Between:
Mr. Y.P.Lingam
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and others
...Respondents
ORDER :
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "...to declare the acts of the Respondent No. 4
herein as unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Page 2 of 6 Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to be restrained from interfering with the personal life and liberty of the Petitioner herein without registering any FIR and without following the due process of law, and pass..."
2. Heard Sri Jettoji Srinath Chary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen working as a Trackman in Indian Railways and is the sole breadwinner of his family consisting of his mother, wife, and three children. He states that he had only casual and friendly communication with a widow, Mrs. Namiligari Sujatha, to offer emotional support after the death of her husband, and once he came to know that her in-laws objected to such communication, he stopped all contact with her. On 21-02- 2026, a group of about 15 persons forcibly went to the house Page 3 of 6 of the petitioner, abused and threatened his family members, falsely accused him of having an illegal relationship with the said woman, and demanded Rs.5,00,000 while threatening to kill him and his family if the amount was not paid. Upon receiving information from his wife, he approached police Station Chegunta and reported the matter. The Sub- Inspector spoke to the callers, directed them to appear before the police station, and later informed them that no offence was made out as the communication between two consenting adults did not constitute a crime.
4. However, the said persons allegedly continued to threaten the petitioner and attempted to pressurize the woman to make false statements against him. Subsequently, they approached P.S. Bhiknoor with false allegations of rape. The police personnel and intermediaries allegedly began threatening his family members to pay money for an "outside settlement," failing which a false rape case would be registered against him and he would be arrested, leading to Page 4 of 6 loss of his government job. No FIR has been registered against the petitioner so far and expresses his willingness to cooperate with any lawful investigation. However, he apprehends illegal arrest or detention without due process and contends that any such action would be arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights to life and personal liberty. Hence, seeks indulgence of this Court.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that a complaint was lodged by Smt. N. Sujatha before the Station House Officer, Biknur Police Station on 22.02.2026 alleging that she had given Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioner as they were acquainted, but the petitioner failed to repay the amount and used abusive language. Based on the complaint, a General Diary entry was made and an enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, the petitioner was called but did not cooperate. After enquiry, the police found that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant was civil in nature. Accordingly, the complaint Page 5 of 6 was closed on 24.02.2026 and the complainant was advised to approach the competent Court for appropriate relief, which was also communicated to her through a notice on the same date.
6. It is further contend that the allegations made by the petitioner that the police interfered with his personal liberty or threatened him with false implication in a rape case are incorrect and baseless. It is stated that the police only conducted an enquiry and did not harass, threaten, or interfere in the civil dispute at any point of time. Therefore, the respondents submit that the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record and considering the role and limitations of the police even in the course of criminal proceedings, the respondent police authorities are directed to refrain from interfering with the Page 6 of 6 personal life and liberty of the petitioners, except in strict accordance with law and by following due process.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated: 09.03.2026 VSU