Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 664 (TS)

Mohammad Gousia Bee v. State Of Telangana

2020-09-02

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT T.Vinod Kumar, J. - The present writ petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in harassing the petitioners by taking repeatedly to the 3rd respondent Police Station without registration of FIR and harassing the 1st petitioner - Senior Citizen, as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The present writ petition is taken up for hearing today, i.e. 02.09.2020, through Video Conferencing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the writ averments, would submit that the petitioners were not informed of their involvement in any crime for which they are being called to the police station regularly by the 3rd respondent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that without any case being registered against the petitioners, the respondent police authorities are seeking to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has forwarded to this Court by e-mail, written instructions dated 02.09.2020 under the signature of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadem Police Station, Nirmal District. By the said written instructions, while denying the writ averments, it is stated that as per the records of the 3rd respondent, as of now, no complaint or case whatsoever was received or registered against the petitioners herein on the file of the 3rd respondent police station, and hence, summoning the petitioners to the police station does not arise. By the aforestated written instructions, it is further stated that no complaint whatsoever was lodged by Smt.Sahista Parween, who is the wife of younger son of the 1st petitioner, by name, Mohd. Amaruddin, till date, about the missing of her husband. By the above written instructions, it is also stated that keeping in mind the internal and family disputes between the petitioners and said Smt.Sahista Parween, wife of Mohd. Amaruddin, the younger son of the 1st petitioner, the petitioners, in anticipation of Smt.Sahista Parween approaching the respondent police and making a complaint against the petitioners, approached this Court to prevent the respondent authorities from registering a case and investigating thereinto. 6. Amaruddin, the younger son of the 1st petitioner, the petitioners, in anticipation of Smt.Sahista Parween approaching the respondent police and making a complaint against the petitioners, approached this Court to prevent the respondent authorities from registering a case and investigating thereinto. 6. Having regard to the submissions made as above and taking note of the fact, that as of today no case is registered against the petitioners and the statement of the respondent police authorities that the said authority is not calling the petitioners to the police station, no further orders are necessary to be passed in the present writ petition. 7. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.