IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32849 of 2014 BETWEEN A.Kondal Reddy and another AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners allege that respondent No.4 is repeatedly calling the petitioners to attend the police station and pressurizing them, at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 7, to settle the civil suit viz., O.S.No.112 of 2013, which is pending before the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned Government Pleader, who has received instructions from respondent No.4, states that respondent No.6 approached the Malakpet Police Station on 24.09.2014 and orally complained that petitioners have taken some amount from him three years back and refused the repayment and has abused respondent No.6 on 24.09.2014 in filthy language and hence requested police to enquire into. Said oral statement of respondent No.6 is entered in General Diary and to know the veracity thereof, petitioners were telephoned, but they did not approach the police. It is further stated that as of now no case is registered against the petitioners before the Malakpet Police Station and at no point of time any of the police officers have pressurized the petitioners to settle the civil dispute as alleged. It is also stated that police have never seen the petitioners and are in no way concerned with the said civil dispute. Except summoning the petitioners to know the veracity of the oral complaint of respondent No.6, no complaint is taken against the petitioners.
4. In view of the said statement on behalf of the Inspector of police, Malakpet Police Station, no further direction is necessary.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 10, 2014 LMV