This order dismisses a writ petition challenging police action of summoning petitioners, forcing signatures on stamp papers, and taking cheques. Police denied allegations, citing a valid Section 41-A notice.
Petition dismissed; liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law; consequential miscellaneous petitions closed.
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 A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32815 OF 2016
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the second respondent, at the instance of the respondents 3 and 4 in calling the petitioners to the police station and forcing them to write and sign on the stamp papers and taking cheques forcibly.
It is brought to the notice of this Court, by the learned Government Pleader, that crime No.101 of 2016 was registered on the complaint of the third respondent against the first petitioner and three others. The case was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, a notice under Section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to the first petitioner. In view of the same, police denied the allegation that they are calling the petitioners to the police station or taking signatures on stamp papers and cheques from them. It is also stated that they are not interfering in the day to day activities of the petitioners as alleged in the affidavit.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are given liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO , J 11.04.2017 pln
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners were illegally summoned to police station, forced to sign stamp papers and take cheques.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
First Petitioner and Others
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
A. R. Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
