Telangana High Court
Sri. Pavan Taneja, vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 November, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.32394 OF 2024
ORDER :(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 - the Station House Officer, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, in interfering in the civil disputes between petitioner and respondent No.3, as being illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Mr. S. Mir Masood Ali Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sridhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a tenant of respondent No.3's property i.e., Flat No.203, 2nd Floor, D.No.3-9-121/A to 3-9-127 admeasuring 1440 square feet along with one parking area admeasuring 100 square feet of Creative Kamal Complex, above SBI Bank, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. Respondent No.3 filed eviction suit in O.S. No.650 of 2018 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, which is pending. While things stood thus, 2 respondent No.2 had been interfering with his possession and in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Thus, petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, having received written instructions dated 19.11.2024 from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Marredpally Police Station, and submitted that the relative of respondent No.3, Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, lodged complaint dated 15.11.2024 against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, an entry in General Diary (G.D.) was made and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, respondent No.2 called the petitioner to the Police Station for the purpose of enquiry. In the enquiry, it was revealed that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the complainant. As such, the complaint of Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, was closed as civil in nature.
5. It is submitted that respondent No.2 neither interfered in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 nor forced the petitioner to settle the dispute with respondent No.3. 3
6. A copy of written instructions along with closure report is served on learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. In view of the categorical statement made in the written instructions that respondent No.2 - the Station House Officer, West Marredpally Police Station, did not interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J November 20, 2024 MS