Disposed

Seeram Santosh v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Dec 2022WP/38813/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition addressed allegations by petitioners that the 4th respondent was harassing them over a burnt Chief Minister's cutout. The Court observed the petition, allowed the respondent to examine petitioners under Cr.P.C. Section 160, and discharged the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

No coercive relief; respondents permitted to examine petitioners under Section 160 Cr.P.C.

Seeram Santosh Vs the State of Ap — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38813 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners have approached this Court with the contention that the 4^th respondent is harassing the petitioners, for extraneous reasons.

¶5

The background of the case is that on 18.11.2022, a large cut out of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State, situated opposite to Guduru Hospital on the National High Way, was burnt down and a case in Crime No.343 of 2022 was registered on 19.11.2022 in the police station of the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners allege that, the 4^th respondent has been harassing the petitioners and sought to forcibly obtain their signatures on blank papers, failing which, the 4^th respondent is threatening to use third degree methods against the petitioners.

¶6

Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition complaining against the high handed, arbitrary actions of the 4^th respondent.

¶7

¶8

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that notices under Section 160 of Cr.P.C had been issued to the petitioners on the belief that the petitioners would have some knowledge about the miscreants, who had burnt the cut out. He submits that apart from issuance of notice, the 4^th respondent has not taken any coercive steps against the petitioners and the apprehension of the petitioners in this regard is misplaced. The learned Assistant Government Pleader specifically states that no signatures of the petitioners have been taken either on blank papers or on printed or typed papers.

¶9

Recording the same, this writ petition is closed by observing that it would be open to the 4^th respondent, to examine the petitioners under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. In the event of any future difficulty, the petitioners may approach this Court. There shall be no order as costs.

¶10

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶12

12.12.2022 RJS

¶13

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.38813 of 2022

¶16

12.12.2022 RJS

Seeram Santosh v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seeram Santosh 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

V.Ramana Charyulu Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P.and Anr.

Orsu Kasaiah at Orchu Pedda Kasaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

C Sambamurthy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pusala Nirmala Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Garnepudi Krupa Sudhakar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gade Sriharibabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh