The Hyderabad High Court has taken serious note of alleged police inaction in matters of a grave nature, directing the Station House Officer (SHO) of Miyapur police station to appear before it in person. Justice NV Shravan Kumar issued the order on Thursday, setting the date for the personal appearance as December 29.
Court's Stern Direction Over Closed Complaints
The directive came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by an elderly doctor couple. The petitioners, a paediatrician and a gynaecologist, alleged that their complaints were closed by the police citing a lack of evidence. They contended that this was done without furnishing proper reasons and without informing either them or the court.
Justice Shravan Kumar ordered the SHO to place before the court complete details explaining the precise basis on which the complaints were closed. The judge expressed clear dissatisfaction with the vague explanation provided so far.
Background of the Legal Tussle
The couple is currently facing a case of sexual harassment and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) filed by their daughter, who is a medical student. A chargesheet in this case has been filed and is pending before a trial court.
The doctors have consistently maintained that these allegations are false. They claim the accusations arose only after they objected to their daughter's relationship with a married man from another faith.
In a counter-move, the couple had approached senior police officials earlier, seeking a transfer of the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or to an officer of Inspector General (IG) rank. They alleged that the Miyapur police failed to follow due process in their investigation.
Sequence of Complaints and Court Hearings
The couple had lodged two separate complaints with the police—one in December 2024 and another in April 2025. In these complaints, they alleged that their daughter was being illegally confined by her partner. They stated that the man has two children from his first marriage and sought police intervention in the matter.
During a previous hearing on December 17, the High Court had directed the SHO to inform the court about the status of these complaints. The court had warned that failure to comply would result in the officer's personal appearance.
However, during the hearing on Wednesday, the court was informed that both complaints had been closed due to "lack of evidence." This explanation did not sit well with the bench.
Judge Questions Basis of Police Action
Taking strong exception to the police's explanation, Justice Shravan Kumar questioned the rationale behind the closure. "You simply state that the complaints are closed, but on what basis are they closed, and what is the lack of evidence?" the judge observed pointedly.
Noting that the issues raised in the complaints were of a serious nature, the court found the explanation insufficient. Consequently, it directed the SHO to appear in person with the complete details of the inquiry conducted. Following this order, the judge adjourned the hearing.
The case highlights ongoing concerns about police accountability and procedural diligence in handling sensitive complaints, bringing the actions of the local police under judicial scrutiny.
