Allowed

Penemetsa Agastya Maruti Varma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Mar 2024WP/5463/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the police action in summoning petitioners without issuing a Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice in a case involving Sections 498A/506 IPC. The court held that for offences punishable under seven years, police must follow Section 41A Cr.P.C. procedures.

What did the court decide?

High Court directed the police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A of Cr.P.C.

Penemetsa Agastya Maruti Varma Vs the State of… — Domestic Violence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

\ ■

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5463 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Penemetsa Agastya Maruti Varma, S/o.Srinivasa Raju, Hindu, Male, aged 30 yrs. Software Engineer, r/o.H.N0.6-2-646/6, Flat No.204, Chintal Basti, Khairatabad-500004. Telangana State.

¶10

Penmetsa Srinivasa Raju, S/o.Satyanarayana Raju, Hindu, male, aged 57 yrs, r/o.H. No.6-2-646/6, Rat No.204, Chintal Basti, Khairatabad-5000^04.

¶11

Telangana State.

¶12

Penmesta Uma Maheswari Devi, W/o.Srinivasa Raju, Hindu, female, aged 57 yrs, r/o.H.No.6-2-646/6, R/0 No.204, Chintal Basti, Khairatabad-500004. Telangana State.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶16

The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District.^Eluru.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station,^{Chebrole.WestGodavari} District.

¶18

Pothuri @ Penmesta Bala Tripura Sundari, W/o. Agastya Maruti Varma, Dia Pothuri Srinivas Raju, Hindu, Female, aged 24 yrs. House-wife, r/o.Fiat No.403, Sunny Green Space Apartments, Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu Mandal, Eluru District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Petition Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 3'^'^ respondent police in calling the petitioners 1 to 3 to the police station and the respondent-police not followed the procedure contemplated in Arnesh Kumar^{Vs.StateofBiharandalso} Lalita Kumari vs Govt. Of U.P. and Ors., and not issued any 41-A Cr.P.C Notice wherein the police has to give notice in two weeks time to submit their

¶21

explanations, which is quite illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21^{oftheConstitutionofIndiaand} consequently to direct the respondent no.3 police to^{issuea41-ACr.P.Cnoticeto} the petitioners 1 to 3 and their family-members in any FIR in pursuance of the complaint made by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of main writ petition and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the personal liberty in the matrimonial affairs of the 1st petitioner in connection with pending O.P.No. 163/2024 before the ll-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 police to issue a 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the petitioners 1 to 3 and their family-members in any FIR in pursuance of the complaint made by the 4‘^ respondent, pending disposal of main writ petition.

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the personal liberty in the matrimonial affairs of the 1®* petitioner in connection with pending^{O.P.No.163/2024beforethe} ll-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SRINIVAS MANCHANAPALLI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: —

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶31

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH

¶32

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO:5463 OF 2024

¶36

Between:

¶37

Penemetsa Agastya Maruti Varma, S/o. Srinivasa Raju, 30 years, Software Engineer, R/o.H.No.6-2-646/6, Flat No.204, Chintal Basti, Khairatabad-500004, Telangana State.

¶38

Penmetsa Srinivasa Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju, 57 years, R/o. H.No.6-2-646/6, Flat No.204, Chintal Basti, Kahiratabad-500004, Telangana State.

¶39

Penmesta Uma Maheswari Devi, W/o. Srinivasa Raju, Hindu, 57 years, R/o. H.No.6-2-646/6, Flat No.204, Chintal Basti, Khairatabad-500004, Telangana State.

¶40

... Petitioners

¶41

And

¶42

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶43

The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru.

¶44

The Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station,
Chebrole, West Godavari District.
4. Pothuri @ Penmesta Bala Tripura Sundari,
W/o.Agastya Maruti Varma, D/o. Pothuri Srinivas Raju,
24 years. Housewife, R/o. Flat No.403, Sunny Green
Space Apartments, Narayanapuram Village, Unguturu
Mandal, Eluru District.
... Respondents

¶45

The Court made the following:

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the^actionof 3'''^ respondent police in calling the petitioners 1 to 3 and their family members to the police station and the respondent-police not following the procedure contemplated in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and also Laiita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. by issuing notice Section 41-A Cr.P.C. as illegal and arbitrary,^and direct the respondents not to interfere with the personal liberty in the matrimonial affairs of petitioner in connection with pending O.P.No.163 of 2024 before the II Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that 4‘^ respondent,^who is wife of petitioner, gave complaint against the petitioners and 3'''^ respondent-police threatening them to come to police^station and the police visited the house of the petitioners and created panic situation in their mind. The complaint was given only with an intention to squeeze money from them and the police are trying to arrest the petitioners without following the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of protecting the petitioners from the coercive action by the police in Crime No. 106 of 2024 of Chebrolu PS, Eluru District registered for the offences punishable under

¶51

¶52

¶53

Sections 498A and 506 IPC on the ground that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years and^{praysthisCourt} to direct the police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A of Cr.P.C.

¶54

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^did not oppose the same and concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than^sevenyears.

¶55

Heard. Perused the material on record.

¶56

Since the allegations leveled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, this Court directs the police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. scrupulously as per the guidelines^enunciated in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another^.

¶57

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed^of.There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if^any,pending

¶59

in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶60

¶61

T (2014) 8 see 273

¶62

//TRUE eOPY//

¶63

Sd/-S.SRINIVAS PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶64

SEeTION OFFieER

¶65

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State^{ofAndhraPradesh,} Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶66

The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District.^Eluru. 3. The Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station,^{Chebrole.WestGodavari} District.

¶67

Pothuri @ Penmesta Bala Tripura Sundari, W/o. Agastya^{MarutiVarma,Dia} Pothuri Srinivas Raju, Hindu, Female, aged 24 yrs.^{House-wife,r/o.Fiat} No.403, Sunny Green Space Apartments, Narayanapuram^{Village,Unguturu} Mandal, Eluru District.

¶68

One CC to SRI. SRINIVAS MANCHANAPALLI Advocate [OPUC] 6. TwoCCsto GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three C.D.Copies nm gi

HIGH COURT

DATED; 12/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.5463 of 2024

DISPOSING OFTHE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

Penemetsa Agastya Maruti Varma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penemetsa Agastya Maruti Varma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Animisetty Subrahmanyam Vs State of Ap

Ch.Hema Kalyani, Vs The State of A.P

Kanamathareddy Jawahar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Sunkara Veera Venkata Naga Suresh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarlagadda Krishna Chandu Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bonnapati Mahendra Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh