Allowed

K J D Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2022WP/16097/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the police summons for investigation despite kidney ailment. The court rejected the claim of total inability to appear but directed the Investigation Officer to allow companions for assistance and ensure humane treatment.

What did the court decide?

The Investigation Officer shall allow two or three persons to accompany the petitioner and ensure he is treated with all human dignity.

K J D Srinivas Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.16097 OF 2022

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Writ Petition for Mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner by summoning him to the Police Station under the guise of investigation in Crime No.85 of 2022 of Kakinada II Town Police Station, without considering his health condition, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently sought direction to the respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere with his personal liberty.

¶4

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

¶5

A case in Crime No.85 of 2022 was registered in II Town Police Station of Kakinada for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 384 and 506 of I.P.C. on 21.04.2022. The petitioner is A-1 in the said crime. The said crime is under investigation.

¶6

¶7

While so, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition No.3383 of 2022 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quash of the said F.I.R. He has also sought for stay of all further proceedings in the said crime. However, this Court in the Interlocutary Application filed in the said Criminal Petition has only ordered the Investigation Officer to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

¶8

When the Investigation Officer is now making an effort to serve notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. against the petitioner pursuant to the direction given by this Court in the aforesaid Interlocutary Application, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid reliefs.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a patient suffering from serious ill-health of his Kidneys and he is undergoing Dialysis and as such, he is unable to appear before the Investigation Officer. It is stated that he has already submitted representation on 07.05.2022 to the Investigation Officer stating that he is suffering from serious ill-health and the Investigation Officer is not taking

¶10

¶11

the same into consideration and in spite of his ill-health, he has been interfering with his personal liberty by summoning him to the Police Station under the guise of investigation in the aforesaid crime.

¶12

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and he has been carrying on his profession and as such, it cannot be said that he is not in a position to attend the Police Station in a crime registered against him. He would submit that the petitioner is avoiding his appearance and also other process of law on the ground that he is suffering from ill-health. He would submit that it is a false pretext that is put forward for avoiding the legal process in the above crime.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has produced the certificate issued by Authorized Signatory of AINU Centre for Advanced Kidney Care in proof of the fact that patient is undergoing Dialysis treatment thrice in a week. She would submit that in view of his health condition, interference of the Investigation

¶14

¶15

Officer with his liberty by summoning him to the Police Station is illegal, unsustainable and thereby prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶16

The fact that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant is not in dispute before this Court. Even as can be seen from the Certificate dated 08.07.2022 that is produced by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner is attending the said Kidney Care Clinic for Dialysis thrice a week with the assistance of two or three persons, as he requires assistance to move from the bed. Therefore, when he is able to attend the Hospital for the purpose of Dialysis with the assistance of two or three persons, it cannot be said that he is unable to attend the Police Station to cooperate for investigation in the crime that was registered against him.

¶17

Therefore, it cannot be said that the Investigation Officer has been interfering with his personal liberty without following the due process of law. When a crime was registered against the petitioner, law has to take its own course. The petitioner himself has invited an order

¶18

¶19

from this Court directing the Investigation Officer to follow procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. So, when the Investigation Officer is following procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot prevent the said action of Police by way of filing this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition clearly appears to be pre-emptive.

¶20

However, as the medical record shows that the petitioner is a Dialysis patient, who requires assistance of two or three persons to move from the house, while securing presence of the petitioner in terms of notice that may be served U/s.41A Cr.P.C., the Investigation Officer shall allow two or three persons, to accompany him for assistance to attend before the Investigation Officer. The Investigation Officer shall also treat him with all human dignity when he appears before him and take all necessary precautionary steps to see that he is treated properly in view of the health condition of the petitioner.

¶21

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.

¶22

¶23

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ

¶24

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶25

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date: 14.10.2022

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.16097 OF 2022

¶31

Date: 14-10-2022

¶32

K J D Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K J D Srinivas v. The 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

G.Dorababu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Naredla Rajani Kumari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Rev. Ravi Chebrolu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mannava Anjaneyulu Vs the State of Ap

Javishetty Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Nazar Poopayil Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh