Dr.K.Siva Prasad, Vs The State of A.P.

DR.K.SIVA PRASAD,, S/O. K. JAMBULAIAH, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 81-308-1, SHARADA NAGAR, B CAMP POST, NEAR GOOTY PETROL PUMP, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. (PRESENTLY WORKING AT NANDYAL M.R.HOSPITAL, NANDYAL).

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NANDYAL DISTRICT

¶14

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDYAL II TOWN P.S., NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶15

SAJIDA SHAIK, W/O.LATE SHAIK ASIF, AGE. MAJOR, R/O H.NO.843, MALDARPETA, NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.N PREMRAJ

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

1.GP FOR HOME

¶21

2

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶23

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶24

“…to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in calling the petitioner to the II Town Police Station for illegal settlement with the defacto complaint in Crime No. 134/2025 under Section 194 BNSS without issuing any prior notice under Sec 35(3) BNSS is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Principles of Natural justice and in violation of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to call the petitioner to the II Town Police Station for illegal settlement with the defacto complaint in Crime No. 134/2025 under Section 194 BNSS without issuing any prior notice under Sec 35(3) BNSS, in the interest of justice …”

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶26

Mr.N.Prem Raj, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that Respondent No.3 is insisting that the Petitioner to come for settlement with the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.134 of 2025, registered under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), without issuing any appropriate notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’.

¶27

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.4 lodged a complaint before Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner and two other doctors regarding the death of his father. The said complaint was registered as Cr.No.134 of 2025 under Section 194 of ‘the BNSS’. It is submitted that Respondent No.3 never called the Petitioner to the police station for settlement with Respondent No.4. It is further submitted that the police never personally

¶28

3

¶29

insisted that the Petitioner come for compromise with the de-facto complainant in Cr.No.134 of 2025. It is within the discretion of the Investigating Officer to consider whether issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of ‘the BNSS’ is warranted, if a case is made out against the Petitioner by scrupulously following judgments of the Honble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation¹ , Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar² and Md.Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand³ . Respondent No.3 has informed that it is not possible to refer the case without thorough investigation, including receipt of the post-mortem certificate and examination of additional witnesses.

¶30

Recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent No.3 to proceed in accordance with law in Crime No.134 of 2025, without insisting that the petitioner enter into any settlement with Respondent No.4.

¶31