Disposed

C.Ramaiah, v. Government of A.P

Telangana HC16 Dec 2013WP/35635/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition filed challenging police harassment for summons issued without crime registration. The Court permitted the petitioners to produce the missing person to close the case and restrained future interference with their liberty.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to produce missing person; on production, case to be closed and interference with liberty to cease.

C.Ramaiah, Vs Government of A.P — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.35635 of 2013

¶3

DATED: 16-12-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

C. Ramaiah and others .. Petitioners and Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in calling the petitioners to the police station and

¶11

harassing them in the absence of registration of any crime against them, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that on a complaint given by one C. Shanthipriya, alleging that her husband, by name C. Pavan Kumar (son of petitioners 1 and 2), was missing, F.I.R.No.939 of 2013 was registered on 28.11.2013 by respondent No.2 and that investigation into the said crime is in progress. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has denied that the police have been harassing the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the person who is allegedly missing is very much present in the house of petitioners 1 and 2 and that the police have been unduly harassing the petitioners.

¶14

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that if the petitioners produce the said Pavan Kumar before respondent No.2, he will close the case.

¶15

In the light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioners are permitted to produce C.Pavan Kumar before respondent No.2. On such production, respondent No.2 shall close the case and refrain from interfering with the personal liberty and freedom of the petitioners and the said Pavan Kumar.

¶16

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.44281 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶18

16^th December, 2013 IBL

C.Ramaiah, v. Government of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ramaiah, v. Government of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Khaja, Vs a. P. State Wakf Board

E. Saritha Priya Vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh

Rajesh Kumar Malpani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd.Sohail, Vs The District Collector

Somoni Appa Rao Vs The Tahsildar

Chohan Ganesh, Vs The Govt of A.P.