Disposed

Manchini Santhosh Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Jun 2016WP/20870/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, at the ripe stage, directed Respondents 4 and 5 not to summon the petitioner to the police station except in accordance with legally established procedures, accepting government counsel's assurance of false allegations and lack of pending crime.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 4 and 5 are directed not to summon the petitioner to the police station except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Manchini Santhosh Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 20870 of 2016

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

¶5

“…to issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the illegal acts of the Respondents No.4-5 in (a) summoning the petitioner frequently to the police station illegally by way of threat and coercion, demanding huge amounts for settlement of matrimonial dispute, making him sit in the police station from morning to night without any case as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the Respondents 4-5 not to interfere and harass the petitioner by summoning the petitioner to police station without due process of law and pass..”

¶6

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the State of Telangana appearing for respondents 1 to 5. At the request of both the counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. Since this Court is not deciding the case on merits, it may not be necessary to hear unofficial respondent No.6.

¶7

3. Case of the petitioner is that he is working as Junior Assistant in Revenue Department and married respondent No.6 on 14.02.2013. Out of the marital wedlock, they were blessed with a son. It is his case that since his parents expired long back, his brother, who was

¶8

studying 10^th class, was residing with them. As respondent No.6 objected for the same, disputes arose between them. In this regard, at the instance of respondent No.6, respondents 4 and 5 are summoning him to police station without there being any case registered against him.

¶9

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5, on instructions, stated that the allegations made against respondents 1 to 5 are false and that petitioner shall not be summoned to police station without following due process of law. Recording the said statement and having regard to the fact that no crime is pending against the petitioner as on today, the respondents 4 and 5 are directed not to summon the petitioner to police station except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶10

5. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶11

______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶12

28.06.2016 DRK

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶14

W.P.No.20870 of 2016

¶15

28.06.2016

Manchini Santhosh Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manchini Santhosh Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

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

V. Parameswari Vs C. Nagarathnamma

Dr. a. Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

M. Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Telangana.

Atul J Shah Vs The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration And

Badavath Padma Vs The State of Telangana

M Doraswamy Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh