Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18827
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V. Venugopal, J
K. Pandu Ranga Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.17149 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rameshwar B
For the Respondents: M. Srinivas
Police conduct of an enquiry based on a lodged complaint does not constitute an illegal interference with personal liberty, provided no coercive action is taken outside due procedure.
Headnote:The petitioner approached the court seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the action of police officials who allegedly interfered with his personal liberty and compelled him to remain at the police station under the influence of private respondents, violating Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The court examined whether the police interfered with the petitioner's liberty without due process. The official respondents contended that the petitioner was called for enquiry regarding a complaint lodged by another party, which subsequently revealed pending civil disputes and resulted in the closure of the complaint on 14.04.2026. The writ petition is disposed of recording the state's instruction that no interference with the petitioner's personal life and liberty occurred beyond the conduct of a formal enquiry.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of violation of personal liberty and due process by police authorities. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. justification of police presence as a routine enquiry into a civil complaint. (Para 4) |
| 3. disposal of petition based on official confirmation of no illegal interference. (Para 5) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in interfering with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner at the instance and influence of respondent Nos.6 to 8 and compelling the petitioner to sit in the police station without any valid reason and without receiving their complaint dated 06.04.2026 which the petitioner filed against respondent Nos.6 to 8 and further, threatening the petitioner that they will implicate them in false cases if they do not hand over the land to respondent Nos.6 to 8 without following due procedure, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner without following the due procedure and …”
2. Heard Sri Rameshwar B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents and with their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at the instance of the unofficial respondents, the official respondents are interfering with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner without any valid reason and made him to sit in the police station for hours together. Stating so, he prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.
4. Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that respondent No.8 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and for the purpose of enquiry only the petitioner was called to the police station. He would further submit that, during the course of enquiry, it is revealed that civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. Therefore, the complaint was closed on 14.04.2026. He would further submit that, except making an enquiry, the respondent-police never interfered with ht personal life and liberty of the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, this Court disposed of this writ petition recording the written instructions, which state that, except conducting enquiry on the complaint lodged by respondent No.8, the respondent-police never interfered with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
