The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging frequent police summonses. The court found the investigation concluded and a charge-sheet filed against the first petitioner while the second was deleted as an accused, rendering the harassment claim devoid of merit.
Writ Petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Writ Petition No.11625 of 2007
Dated:07th March, 2010
Between:
1. V.Madan Mohan Reddy & Anr.
….Petitioners
and
1. The Station House Officer, Lakkireddipalli P.S., Lakkireddypalli, Kadapa District and others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Writ Petition No.11625 of 2007
ORDER:
This Writ Petition has been filed by V.Madan Mohan Reddy and Shaik Noor Mohammed with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Station House Officer, Lakkireddipalli P.S.-1st respondent in harassing them by requiring them to be present in the Lakkireddipalli Police Station regularly as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioners as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows:
1st petitioner is working as Additional Assistant Engineer at Madanapalle and 2nd petitioner is working as Addl. Asst. Engineer at Guntur. Earlier, the 1st petitioner worked as Add. Assistant Engineer, Chakkrayapeta and whereas, the 2nd petitioner worked as Addl. Asst. Engineer at Chinnamandem. A complaint was lodged by
K.Devarayalu, Additional Assistant Engineer, Galiveedu Operations, APSPDCL, Galiveedu, on 01.12.2005 before the Station House Officer, Lakkireddipalli P.S., alleging missing of two numbers of AAA conductor wire drums kept in the P.S. premises. Basing on the said complaint, the Station House Officer, Lakkireddipalli P.S., registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2006 for the offence under Section 379 IPC. The petitioners are being frequently summoned to the Police Station to the detriment of discharging their official duties. Hence, this Writ Petition seeking the prayer stated supra.
3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 07.06.2007.
4. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that Police after due investigation in Crime No.93 of 2006 filed charge-sheet against the 1st petitioner, while deleting the 2nd petitioner from the array of the accused. Para.3 of the counteraffidavit needs to be noted and it is thus:
“3. I respectfully submit that during the course of investigation, I have examined 12 witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. The Inspector of Police, Lakkireddipalli Circle verified the investigation done by this respondent and also examined another 7 witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. The eye witnesses (10 to 12) deposed in their statements that the 1st petitioner Mr.V.Madan Reddy, the then Addl. Asst. Engineer of Chakrayapet Mandal, Kadapa District has committed the offence which is punishable U/Sec.379 IPC and since he had stolen one missing drum containing conductor wire. There is no evidence established against the 2nd petitioner during the course of investigation to show that he committed the offence. Investigation was completed. The name of the 2nd petitioner was deleted. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the 1st petitioner (sole accused) before the Hon’ble Court of Judl. First Class Magistrate at Lakkireddipalli of Kadapa District on 31.07.2007 praying the Hon’ble Court to issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the 1st petitioner herein since he is absconding. The said Hon’ble Court is yet to take the charge-sheet on file.”
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.
6. It is evident from the counter-affidavit that the 1st respondent registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.93 of 2006 of Lakkireddipalli P.S. for the offence under Section 379 IPC and filed charge-sheet against the 1st petitioner, while deleting the 2nd petitioner from the array of the accused. The apprehension of the petitioners that they are being summoned very frequently during the course of investigation in Crime No.93 of 2006 does not stand to reason, since the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed against the 1st petitioner herein and deleting the 2nd petitioner from the array of the accused.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. No costs.
______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date: 07th April, 2010.
cs
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Writ Petition No.11625 of 2007
Dated:0 7 th April, 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether frequent police summonses during investigation violate Article 21 given completed investigation and charge-sheet.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging police summons has merit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.Madan Mohan Reddy & Anr.
The Station House Officer, Lakkireddipalli P.S.
B.Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
