The Telangana High Court dismissed a petition over a 2017 land dispute citing available remedies under CrPC/BNSS, and upheld the preventive detention of a robbery accused under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. Learn the legal reasoning behind both rulings.
Introduction
In a recent set of rulings, the Telangana High Court dealt with two significant legal matters — one concerning a land dispute case involving a former Maoist and another upholding the preventive detention of a robbery accused. Both judgments reaffirmed key legal principles related to jurisdiction, constitutional remedies, and public order.
- Land Dispute Case: Petition Dismissed for Lack of Exceptional Circumstances
The Telangana High Court, led by Justice N Tukaramji, dismissed a petition filed by a group of individuals, including a former woman Maoist, seeking a direction to the police to register a trespass case linked to a 2017 land dispute in Abdullapurmet, on the outskirts of Hyderabad.
The Court noted that the relief sought could not be entertained because the petitioners failed to show any exceptional circumstances that warranted the High Court’s intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Tukaramji observed that the petitioners had an alternative remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS). Hence, the proper course of action would be to approach the jurisdictional magistrate, instead of invoking the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The petitioners alleged that certain private individuals had trespassed on their land and attempted to evict them. They also claimed that despite filing a written complaint in October 2017 and repeated follow-ups, no action was taken by the police.
The Court, citing settled Supreme Court precedents, held that in such situations, the complainants should approach the magistrate directly if the police fail to register a case, as provided under Section 156(3) CrPC / BNSS.
- Preventive Detention of Robbery Accused Upheld
In another case, a division bench of the Telangana High Court upheld the preventive detention of a man accused of multiple robberies, dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by his father.
The petitioner argued that the detention order, issued by the Cyberabad Police Commissioner on November 8, 2024, was based only on two robbery cases and thus did not pose a real threat to public order. He also contended that preventive detention violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to personal liberty.
However, the State defended the detention, stating that the accused, charged under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, had committed a second robbery soon after being released on bail, demonstrating a pattern of repeated criminal behavior.
The bench observed that the robberies were violent acts committed in public, causing fear and insecurity among citizens. Therefore, the accused rightly qualified as a ‘Goonda’ under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, justifying the preventive detention order.
Legal Significance
These rulings underscore two key judicial principles:
- Alternative Remedies Must Be Exhausted First: High Courts typically refrain from exercising their extraordinary powers under Article 226 when statutory remedies (like approaching a magistrate) are available.
- Preventive Detention and Public Order: Preventive detention, though restrictive of liberty, can be justified if the person’s actions repeatedly disturb public peace or safety.
Both judgments highlight how the judiciary balances individual rights with procedural fairness and societal interest.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court’s decisions serve as valuable lessons for law students and practitioners about the proper use of constitutional remedies and the limits of preventive detention. They emphasize that while citizens have the right to seek justice, they must also follow the procedural pathways established by law.
Supreme Court on Spousal Communication and Privacy under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act
