IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.39572 OF 2025

DATE: 06.01.2026

Between :

M. Ajay Kumar and another.

… Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana rep., by its Principal Secretary,

Home Department, State of Telangana and seven others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…To issue an appropriate Writ or Order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Investigating Officer i.e., the 5^th respondent in repeate3dly issuing notices to the petitioners, who were not accused in Crime No.45 of 2025 is illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of

the Constitution of India.. …”

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners:

2.1. Mr. S. Sharat Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 45 of 2025 has unlawfully summoned the petitioners by issuing notices under Sections 94 and 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) without any justifiable cause or basis. It is submitted that, as per the contents of the said notices, Petitioner No.1 is alleged to be the son of a witness to Document No.102 of 1969, which is alleged to be a fabricated sale deed dated 04.03.1969. The petitioners, however, have no connection whatsoever with the execution, registration, or alleged fabrication of that document. Despite their clear written replies to the Investigating Officer, notices under Section 94 of BNSS continued to be issued, which the petitioners submit is a misuse of process and an attempt to coerce them under the guise of investigation for settling civil disputes by invoking criminal proceedings.

2.2. Learned Counsel asserts that the actions of the respondent police, particularly the Investigating Officer, are in clear excess of jurisdiction, amounting to an infringement of the petitioners’ personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He argues that the investigation is being used as a tool of harassment rather than for legitimate criminal inquiry. The petitioners have further alleged that the police have sought to involve them on the pretext of producing a General Power of Attorney (GPA) allegedly in the possession of one of the accused in another criminal case. Such repeated summonses, it is argued, constitute a malafide exercise of power and cause undue interference with their personal freedom.

2.3. He further submits that the ongoing investigation clearly transgresses settled parameters of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that criminal proceedings must not be used for settling civil disputes or to cause harassment. He prays that this Court intervene to restrain the respondents from continuing such coercive action. He also requests that the investigation records and CCTV footage be perused to substantiate the claim of police misuse of authority, highlighting that parallel civil and criminal proceedings between the parties show a pattern of abuse. It is further pointed out that the registration of the crime itself, through the Deputy Commissioner of Police before the Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad, supports the inference of mala fide intention. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prays that appropriate protective directions be issued.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:

3.1. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that Crime No. 45 of 2025 was registered based on the report of respondent No.8, alleging fabrication of Sale Deed Document No.102 of 1969. Upon preliminary inquiry, it was found that one Mr. Samsunder, the father of the petitioners, was purportedly connected with the transaction. Therefore, for the purpose of examination and verification, notices were issued under Sections 94 and 179 of BNSS on 31.10.2025,