Dismissed

Mannava Anjaneyulu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2022WP/16541/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge High Court Writ Petition challenges police summoning and alleged threats in the absence of a registered case. The Court held the petitioners' 2-4 had knowingly filed false allegations, as an FIR against them was already registered, thereby dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners 2 to 4 allegations rejected; Petitioner 1 entitled to no summons.

Mannava Anjaneyulu Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CMR, J. W.P.No.16541 of 2021

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶4

Writ Petition No.16541 of 2021

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the respondent police officials have been illegally summoning them to the police station and threatening them to detain in the custody without there being any case registered against them.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents 1 to 3.

¶8

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that on the report lodged by the 4^th respondent, a case in Crime No.73 of 2021 was registered against the petitioners 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 r/w.34 of IPC in Tripuranthakam Police Station and the same is under investigation. He would submit that when the Investigating Officer made an attempt to serve notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. on the petitioners 2 to 4, that they refused to take the notice and thereafter, filed this Writ Petition with false allegations. He would submit that except registering the aforesaid crime and investigating the same, the Investigating Officer never

¶9

¶10

CMR, J. W.P.No.16541 of 2021

¶11

threatened them to detain in the custody as alleged in the Writ Petition.

¶12

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has also placed on record the written instructions received by him from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam Police Station, along with the copy of F.I.R. registered against the petitioners 2 to 4 in the above crime.

¶13

The F.I.R. against petitioners 2 to 4 was registered on 05.04.2021 and thereafter, this Writ Petition was filed on 05.08.2021. So, it is obvious that suppressing the fact that the F.I.R. was registered against petitioners 2 to 4, the writ petition has been filed with false allegations.

¶14

Therefore, when a crime was registered against the petitioners 2 to 4, it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer has been summoning them to the Police Station without there being any crime registered against them or without following the due process of law.

¶15

Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, as no crime was registered against the 1^st petitioner, he cannot be

¶16

¶17

CMR, J. W.P.No.16541 of 2021

¶18

summoned to the Police Station by the Investigating Officer. No costs.

¶19

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶20

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶21

Date:14.10.2022.

¶22

Mannava Anjaneyulu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannava Anjaneyulu v. the State of Ap

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

K J D Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Javishetty Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Nazar Poopayil Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh