[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Avusali Prabhakar vs The State Of Telangana on 13 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.6377 of 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 13.04.2026
Between:
Avusali Prabhakar
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
ORDER :
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, challenging the action of Respondent No.3
herein in summoning the Petitioner to the Police Station
and subjecting mental torture, coercing to hand over the
four wheeler car bearing No.TS 09 EM 1089 to
Respondent No.4 as being illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory and Violation of Article.21 of Constitution
of India....."
2. Heard Ms. Verose Sanjana, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Bala Krishna Mandapati, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is running a stone fitting for
ornaments business. In the course of his business,
respondent No.4 and his friend one Mr.Rajesh was
acquainted with the petitioner. During such acquaintance,
they offered to sell their vehicle bearing No.TS 09 EM 1089
and informed the same to the petitioner and also informed
that the vehicle was under hypothecation with Bajaj
Finance. Accordingly, the petitioner agreed to purchase the
said vehicle and paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000 in cash. It is
mutually agreed that the loan amount payable to Bajaj
Finance would be cleared by respondent No.4. Since then,
the vehicle has been in petitioner's possession and using the
same. Respondent No.4 signed the necessary documents
and assured the petitioner that he would transfer the vehicle
in the petitioner's name. As time passed, petitioner started
insisting respondent No.4 to appear before the RTA officer for
transfer of ownership. However, on one pretext or the other,
respondent No.4 kept postponing the same.
4. On 23.03.2026, between 2:00 PM and 3:00 PM, two
constables in plain clothes forcibly entered the petitioner's
premises. They informed him that respondent No.3 - the
Sub-Inspector had directed them to take his vehicle to the
police station. The petitioner then went to Uppal Police
Station to meet respondent No.3. When he arrived, the Sub-
Inspector abused and threatened him, warning that if he did
not produce the vehicle, he would face serious
consequences, including the registration of a criminal case
against him.
5. Respondent No.3 appears to be acting under the
influence of respondent No.4. Even though the petitioner
clearly explained that he had purchased the vehicle lawfully
in February 2022, respondent No.3 did not consider this
explanation and instead misused his official position to
threaten and harass the petitioner. However, respondent
No.3 is unnecessarily interfering and misusing the legal
process. His actions are arbitrary, illegal, and make him
liable for disciplinary and legal action. The petitioner has a
genuine fear for his life and personal liberty, as the police
may at any time forcibly seize his vehicle and falsely
implicates him in a criminal case. Hence, the present writ
petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would
submit that the vehicle is registered in the name of
respondent No.4. The petitioner has made false allegations
without any evidence, claiming that he paid a significant
amount of money to purchase the car. According to him,
there is no merit in the petitioner's claims and therefore, he
requests that the present writ petition be dismissed.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, upon
furnishing written instructions, submitted that respondent
No.4 filed a complaint stating that he and his friend
Mr. Rajesh had jointly purchased the vehicle. As per their
understanding, Mr. Rajesh took possession of the car. Since
there was an outstanding loan of Rs.4,00,000, respondent
No.4 cleared the loan and the documents stands in his
name. However, Mr. Rajesh did not repay the amount paid
on his behalf and without obtaining a No Objection
Certificate or consent from respondent No.4, sold the car to
the petitioner. The vehicle has been with the petitioner for
the last 20 months and has not been returned despite
several requests. Therefore, action has been sought in the
matter.
8. He further submitted that, based on the said
complaint, respondent No.2 made a General Diary (GD) entry
and assigned the matter to respondent No.3. Respondent
No.3 contacted the petitioner over the phone and also sent a
constable to his house. The petitioner came to the police
station but did not cooperate with the enquiry. It was also
stated that respondent No. 3 only conducted an enquiry into
the complaint and did not harass or force the petitioner to
hand over the vehicle.
9. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and upon perusing the material available on record
as well as the written instructions furnished by the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home, this Court is of the
opinion that respondent No.3 has only conducted an enquiry
based on the complaint filed by respondent No.4. It is also
stated that respondent No.3 has neither exerted any
pressure nor threatened the petitioner to hand over the
subject vehicle. Taking the said written instructions as part
of the record, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated: 13.04.2026
VSU
