Disposed

Sri Kasibatta Narayana Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Jun 2016WP/18097/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition alleging harassment and illegal summoning by the police. Without examining merits, it directed respondents not to summon the petitioner under the guise of investigation without following due process.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were not to summon the petitioner to the Police Station under the guise of investigation without following due process of law.

Sri Kasibatta Narayana Murthy, Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18097 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in calling the petitioner to the Police Station and forcing him to sit in the Police Station for hours together, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought a direction to the respondents not to call him to the Police Station without following due process of law.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home (Andhra Pradesh). A perusal of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the petitioner is working as a Bank Manager, Union Bank of India, Piduguralla Branch, Guntur District, since November, 2012. One Sutharu Vidya Sagar is working as an Authorised Gold Appraiser of the said Bank since 2010. In view of some fraud alleged to have been committed by the Gold Appraiser and others in obtaining gold loans from the Bank, the petitioner gave a report against them on 03.04.2016, which came to be registered as Crime No.91 of 2016 of Piduguralla Police Station, Guntur District, for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The case of the petitioner is that under the guise of investigation, he is being summoned to the Police Station

¶6

frequently, thereby causing much inconvenience to him. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Home denies the allegations made in the writ petition and submits that the police are investigating the matter in accordance with law.

¶7

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to summon the petitioner to the Police Station under the guise of investigation into Crime No.91 of 2016 of Station House Officer, Piduguralla Police Station, Guntur District, without following due process of law and that too as and when required by them only. No order as to costs.

¶8

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶9

_____________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶10

09.06.2016. Msr

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.18097 of 2016

¶13

09.06.2016 Msr

Sri Kasibatta Narayana Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kasibatta Narayana Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Nekarti Venugopala Rao Vs The State of Telangana

A.Anand Vs The State of Telangana

K. Janaki, Vs The State of Telangana

M/ s. Bhuvaneswari Traders, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Late M. Dashratth Reddy, Vs The Station House Officer

Nakka Bhaskar , Venkata Vijaya Bhaskar, Vs The State of Telangana