Partly allowed

A v. Ramana Deekshitulu v the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Mar 2024WP/5949/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Section 160 Cr.P.C. notice served via WhatsApp to an aged petitioner. Citing precedent, the Court held the notice was valid but directed its quashing at liberty to issue fresh notice following due procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 01.03.2024 set aside; liberty granted to respondent police to issue fresh notice following due procedure.

A v Ramana Deekshitulu Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 5949 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

A. V. Ramana Deekshitulu, S/o Late A.Venkatapathi, aged about 76 years, Occ Serving as an Advisor, Agama Sastra and Pradhana Archakulu, Sri Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Temple, Tirumala R/o H.No.3, A-Type Quarters, TTD, Tirumala. Tirupathi District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary,

¶11

Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. Guntur District

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Tirupathi District at Tirupathi. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Tirumala. Tirupathi District

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 may be issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., dated 01.03.2024, served on the petitioner through whatsapp by the 3rd respondent, as being arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, without jurisdiction an contrary to the provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C.and setaside the same while declaring that the petitioner cannot be summoned like this by the investigating agencies.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased may be to suspend the notice, dated 01.03.2024, served on the petitioner through whatsapp, issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C., issued by the 3’^'* respondent, pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petltioner:SRI. CH. LAXMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2,3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶21

AT AMARAVATI

¶22

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶23

FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRUUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 5949/2024

¶27

Between:

¶28

A V Ramana Deekshitulu

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

1.CH LAXMI NARAYANA

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR HOME

¶36

\ 2.GP FOR HOME 3.GP FOR HOME

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The present writ petition is filed for the following^relief;

¶40

"....to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particulariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C, dated 01.03.2024,^served on the petitioner through whatsapp by the 3rd respondent, as being arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, without jurisdiction^and contrary to the provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C. and^set-aside the same while declaring that the petitioner cannot be summoned like this by the investigating agencies and pass such other order or orders...."

¶41

It is the case of petitioner that pursuant to a police report lodged by one L.Murali Sandeep, 3rd respondent herein, registered a case in^Crime No.3 of 2024 of Tirumala I Town Police Station against the petitioner therein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 295, 295A, 505 (2) read with 120B IPC and^{issuedaNotice,} dated 01.03.2024 to the petitioner, under Section 160 Cr.P.C., calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on 05.03.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C., Police Officer has no authority to summon the petitioner. who is aged about 76 years, to appear before him.

¶42

The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. cannot be given to an accused for investigation to examine him, as it amounts to testimonial compulsion and violates Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India.

¶43

Today, when the matter is taken up for admission, learned^{GovernmentPleaderfor} Home relied upon a decision in Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh^, represented by its Principal Secretary and others^ wherein, this Court, by discussing various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court,

¶44

held thus:

¶45

"Therefore, whether he is an accused or a witness,^sinceboththe accused and witnesses are now coming within the ambit of the expression 'any person' used in Section 160 (1) CrPC, the petitioner cannot seek to impeach the impugned notice on the ground that no such notice under Section 160 (1) CrPC can be given to an accused. The contention reiating^{tothebarunder} Articie 20 (3) of the Constitution of India also holds no water in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. It does not amount^{totestimonial} compulsion."

¶46

Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision, the impugned

¶47

Notice, dated 01.03.2024 issued by 3rd respondent cannot be held illegal.

¶48

2022 see Online AP 2402.

¶49

¶50

However, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that the respondent-police have no objection for setting-aside the impugned notice, with a liberty to them to issue fresh notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

¶51

In view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the impugned notice dated 01.03.2024 is set aside. The respondent Police are at liberty to issue fresh notice by following the due procedure as contemplated under the law.

¶52