Shaik Hussain Vs the State of Ap

SHAIK HUSSAIN, S / O BASHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YE A RS, OCC MECHANIC, D.NO. 5 -23, MANDADAM VILLAGE, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A NDHRA PRADESH 522237

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETA R Y, HOME DEPARTMENT, S ECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AM A RAVATHI. 522237

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA P RADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUN T UR DISTRICT. 522004

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR RURAL, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 5 22503

¶17

THE STATION HO U SE OFFICER, THULLUR POLICE STATION, THULLUR, GUNTUR DISTRIC

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayin g that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action o f the 4TH Respondent SHO, Thullur u Police Station, in repeatedly calling t o the police station, harassing. inti m idating, and coercing in a purely civ i l monetary disputes without any FIR or written notice/summons as illegal, a r bitrary and

¶20

2

¶21

unconstitutional, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to Direct the 4TH Respondent Police not to interfere in the civil monetary dispute matters pending between private individuals and to initiate necessary action on my complaint dt. 13.12.2025 and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 4TH Respondent not to call the petitioner to the Police Station without issuing proper notice/summons strictly under Section provision of Cr.P.C/ BNSS and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.BILAAL AHMED SYED

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR HOME

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 2906/2026

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The Writ Petition has been field under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief”

¶34

“...declaring the action of the 4TH Respondent SHO, Thulluru Police Station, in repeatedly calling to the police station, harassing. intimidating, and coercing in a purely civil monetary disputes without any FIR or written notice/summons as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to Direct the 4TH Respondent Police not to interfere in the civil monetary dispute matters pending between private individuals and to initiate necessary action on my complaint dt. 13.12.2025 and to passs..”

¶35

Heard Sri Bilaal Ahmed Syed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being frequently called to the police station, subjected to harassment and intimidation, and thereby deprived of his personal liberty in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that there is a case and counter case between the petitioner and another person, and a case in Crime No.44 of 2023 has been registered at Thulluru Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under

¶38

4

¶39

Sections 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and that

¶40

investigation is going on.

¶41

As seen from the record, the alleged offences levelled against the petitioner/Accused are punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years.

¶42

In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar¹ , wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos.11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below:-

¶43

11.Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

¶44

a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’);

¶45

b)All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

¶46

c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

¶47

d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

¶48

e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

¶49

f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of

¶50

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

¶51

5

¶52

institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

¶53

g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

¶54

h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

¶55

12.We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

¶56

The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand² , which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar.

¶57

In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law, but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioner is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation.

¶58

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that the alleged offences in Crime No.44 of 2023 are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, the 4^th respondent is directed to follow due process law while conducting the investigation. However, the Investigating Officer shall not call the petitioner to the police station or curtail

¶59

2 (2023) 8 SCC 632

¶60

6

¶61

his liberty except in accordance with Sections 41 and 41-A of the

¶62

Cr.P.C./corresponding provisions of BNSS, 2023,.

¶63