Allowed

Chukka Kanaka Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2020WP/20643/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition against the Station House Officer, directing that the petitioner not be summoned or have his liberty interfered without following due process if new reports are lodged other than the original de facto complainant's report.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to summon the petitioner or interfere with his liberty without following due process if reports other than the original de facto complainant's are lodged.

Chukka Kanaka Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.20643 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that the 3^rd respondent-Station House Officer of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, has been repeatedly calling him to the police station without there being any case registered against him and thereby interfering with his personal liberty without following due process of law.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.

¶5

Learned Government Pleader for Home on instructions would submit that a case in Crime No.1035 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) on the report lodged by the 9^th respondent herein, who is the de facto complainant in the said case alleging that the petitioner has cheated him along with others by inducing him to pay money on promise of providing jobs to them. Therefore, he would submit that as the case is now registered under Section 420 of I.P.C against the petitioner and the same is under investigation, that a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) was also issued to the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in a petition filed by the petitioner seeking quash of the said F.I.R. and the petitioner is not responding to

¶6

¶7

the said notice and now he has filed this writ petition with all false and misleading allegations.

¶8

In response to the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the said crime that was registered against the petitioner, police can proceed against him by following due process of law. However, he submits that the police without registering the crimes on the alleged reports lodged by others, they now intend to arrest the petitioner in the said cases when he approaches the 3^rd respondent in response to the notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and such a course is not permissible under law without following due process of law. Therefore, he would pray for passing of appropriate orders in the said circumstances.

¶9

Admittedly, a case in Crime No.1035 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. on the report lodged by the 9^th respondent herein. Therefore, the Investigation Officer has got every right to proceed against the petitioner in connection with the said crime by following due process of law. As the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that without registering the crimes on the reports lodged by other persons, that the police now intends to arrest the petitioner in the said cases after the petitioner makes his appearance in response to the notice issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 3^rd respondent to follow the due process of law in all cases, where reports are lodged by other persons against

¶10

¶11

the petitioner and not to take any steps against the petitioner without following due process of law in any such cases.

¶12

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3^rd respondent that without registering any crimes or F.I.Rs on the basis of the reports, if any, lodged by other persons other than the 9^th respondent herein, not to summon the petitioner to the police station and interfere with his liberty. However, if the said reports disclose commission of any cognizable offences, the 3^rd respondent is at liberty to follow the due process of law and proceed in the said cases. It is also made clear that the 3^rd respondent is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law in Crime No.1035 of 2020. No costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date : 04-12-2020

ARR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.20643 OF 2020

¶20

Date : 04-12-2020

¶21

ARR

Chukka Kanaka Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chukka Kanaka Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Chotilal Khasla Vs the State of Ap

Aradyula Venkata Subramanya Sharma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Patti Mahendra Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gandluru Nageshwaramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammula Sivannarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pathan Khader Khan Vs the State of Ap