WP/33635/2026 of Purighalla Sri Virajitha Vs State of Telangana on 5 October 2026

ORDER

Alleging that the respondents are not taking any effective action on the complaint of the petitioners dated 22.09.2026, despite disclosure of cognizable offences and in not granting police protection to the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary, this writ petition has been filed

2. The leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have lodged a complaint on 22.09.2026, but the same was received by respondent police on 26.09.2026, pursuant to which an FIR No.260/2026, dated 26.09.2026 has been registered, but no effective steps are being taken by the respondents to investigate the matter. It is submitted that the petitioners are now facing threats to their lives. Further, the petitioners have filed the photographs to demonstrate that the petitioners are likely to be attacked by the unofficial respondents.

fMDJ w.P.No, !36r5 ol 2026

3. Mr.D.Pradeep, the leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that FIR No.267/2026, dated 04.10.2026. has been registered on the complaint of the petitioners against the unofficial respondents and FIRNo.26812026, dated 04.10.2026, has been registered against the petitioners herein on the complaint made by unofficial respondents. It is submitted that there are cases and counter cases registered against the petitioners as well as unofficial respondents and that the respondent police are taking action on such complaints.

4. The leamed counsel for the petitioners, however, has drawn the attention of this Court to the ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioners on 05.03.2026 in I.A.No.66/2026 in O.S.No.10/2026. which has been made absolute on 20.08.2026. Therefore, he submitted that in spite of the injunction order, the unofficial respondents are trying to interfere with the possession ofthe petitioners' propertv and therefore, the petitioners are seeking appropriate action against the unofficial respondents.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court finds rhat in W.A.No.1056 of 2024, dated 04.10.2024, the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the order of the Single Judge directing the respondent rNlot w.P.No.B5l5 ot 20;15 police to provide police protection in respect of the final orders in the suit. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:

12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Satyanarayarn Tiwari case (supra), by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan t. Mallikarjun, AIR 1960 SC 137, dealt with the issue whether in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order directing police protection for implementation of order of injunction can be passed. It was held as under: --- "8. In Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjun, AIR 1960 SC 137, the Supreme Court reiterated this principle and went a step further that for doing justice between the parties the High Court has absolute jurisdiction to issue such directions and orders as it may deem fit to do justice between the parties and enforce the low of the land. The only limitations on the wide powers conferred on the High Court and exercisable by il in the matter of issuing writs are (l) that the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and (2) that the person or authority to whom the writ is issued, is within the territories over which the respective High Courts exercise jurisdiction. None of these limitations come in lhe way of the High Court issuing appropriate directions to further secure the right determined and recognised by the Civil Court. The power which a Civil Court has under Section 151 C.P.C., the High Court has in much larger measure under Article 226 of the Constitution. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding, that this Court has ample jurisdiction to issue a writ or direction to all the authorities including the Police within the State to enforce the orders of the Civil Court as confirmed by the High fMD) w.P,No,11635 ol 2025 Court in a civil revision pelition and main.tain ,the Rule of law. The Police Authorities are lhereJore -i"""i'u, give all assistance to the appellant to "r7orr" oid ,"" that the orders of this Court as ,i"nr*"a in CRP No'i258/81 are implemented oni ony enquiry or rePort o/ any other authority' revenue or Police, cannot be Put as an excuse Jor not- r:erulerirtg the required help to the appellant. to maintain his possession This order will be sublect ;;;;';; th,e jnd orders oJ the Civit Court in os No.3770 of 1980." 1 3. The Supreme Court in P R' Muralidharan's case )rurrol. whili dealing with scope of a writ for 'Police orotec,tlion , in Paragraph l9 held as under: "'""-':ii ,l writ for "Police protection" so called' has only u li*ir"d scope, as' when the -Cou,rt, is ,ppro,rched for protection oJ'rights 4:'!:':d bl o 7[rr"r' ", by oi o'd"' passed by a Ciuil Court lt cannot be ixtended to cases where rights have not bee'n determined either finally by the Civil Court or, at least at an interlocutory stage tn (1n unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order'"

14. If owever, the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of iirn i:trr, of'Andhia Pradesh in Satyanarayana Tiwari's '""7" 6"r'*1,'as u'ell as the decision of the Supreme -Court in i.n Uiailanoran's case (supra)' wos not broug-ltt to the "rirrr'ri' i*ition Bench whiih decided IaA Nos 660 of 2022 ,)A lai of 2023. From perusal of the orders passed bv the ),ii,r"roia'Oiuision Benih decisions' it is evident that the 7tr:,. .t the aforesaid tlirections is that the writ petitions ;;ri*'; direction to provide Police protection infurtherance "ri.rri",' ,/i"1"nction should not ordinarily be entertained inler, eI"*eit of injury to public or infraction o/ starute is '*ri" "", The bourt whili exercising the writ jurisdiction ho,rto,rrr"rtoinwhetherornotitisenteringintothearena of private dispute. Even in the aforesaid orders passed in W) tlos.66O )7 ZOZZ and I87 of 202 j' the Dit'ision Benches filD) W.P-rto.3j53S ol 2026 held that an order for grant of Police protection to implement the order of injunction can be issued if there is an element of injury to public or infraction of the statute is made out. Thus, the aforesaid decisions cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that this Court should not order Police protection to implement the order of injunction while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. The Police Authorities are under a legal duty to enforce public order and a citizen is entitled to seek writs for Police protection in an appropriate case notwithstanding the remedy available under Section l5l of CPC and Order XXXX Rule 2-A of CPC. However, we may add that the aforesaid power has to be exercised cautiously and rarely in an appropriate case to meet the ends of justice and to uphold the rule of law. Needless to state that the Court while exercising the aforesaid power, has to satisfy itself that a prima facie case for violation of order of injunction is also made out.

6. In view of the same, the respondent police are directed to take action on the complaint of the petitioners and provi{e police protection to the petitioners. In respect of the complaints which have already registered, the respondents are directed to take action strictly in accordance with law. 7 . Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shalI stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat' Hyderabad

2. The Superintendent of Police, Narayanpet District' Telangana' To, €

3. The Station Te angana. House Officer. Maddur police Station Narayanpet District. t ffi"8#:" lnspector of Police, Kosgi Potice station Narayanpet District,

5. One CC to SRt G.SURENDER, Advocate tOpUCl t lff"r:ffri%GP FoR HoME, Hish court rorinu state or reransana, at

7. Two CD Copies PMK PB M,

HIGH COURT DATED: 0511012026

ORDER

WP.No.33635 of 2026 CC TODAY 1t o d v .$ li * o lJ-r n ss -<i1- . t!) ' g'1 HOtt o 'tl-

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I b

\c Et4 G,^