Dismissed

Gaijala Yeshwant Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Sept 2020WP/14673/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 151 CrPC. The petitioner challenged police interference citing Arnesh Kumar. The Court held that until a cognizable crime is registered, police cannot summon individuals without due process and ordered the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions under Article 226 and Section 151 CrPC were disposed of without costs.

Gaijala Yeshwant Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:^'t4673 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gaijala Yeshwant Kumar, S/o. Pratap, Aged.30 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H No. 4-194, IVLR Colony, Road No.2, Domalguda, Hyderabad-83

¶8

..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Prlncipal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Bldgs, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda.

¶12

The Asst. Commissioner or Police, IMalkajigiri.

¶13

The Circle inspector of Police, Kushaiguda P.S.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Kushaiguda P.S.

¶15

Sri N/ansingh, lnspector of Police Kushaiguda P.S.

¶16

Prem Kumar Rathod, S/o not known to the petitioner Aged 50 years. Occ. ECIL Employee R/o ECIL, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RE''.NDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more partrcularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 to 6 in intedering with the life and libedy of the Petitioner by asking him to attend the Police Statron without following due process of law and without following the guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and D.K.Basu Vs State of West Bengal, as illegal, arbilrary, capricious and violative of Article, 19, 21 ol Constitution of lndia besides violative of principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the respondent No.2 to 6 not to interfere with the life and liberty of the Petitioner without following due process of law or to pass appropriate orders.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.02 to 6 not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner and insist for giving consent for divorce, Without following due process of law.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: Gp FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: NONE APPEARED

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETI?ION NO.14673 OF 2O2O

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is, he being frequently called to the Police Station, without following due process of law, offending his right to liberty and privacy and said action ol the Police is ex facie rllegal.

¶29

According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, 7tt, respondent lodged complaint with the Station House Officer, Kushaiguda Police Station, but so far crime is not registered.

¶30

It is open to the 7th respondent to prosecute the crime alieged to have been committed by the^{petitioner and filing of the} complaint with the Police, but admittedly so^{far no crimeis} registered against the^petitioner. Until^{and unless a crimeis} registered and Police^{require the presenceof the allegedaccused in} the Police Station,^{theycannot call the personto the Police Station'} It would be amounting^{to offending the right to lreedomand liberty} vested in a^{person. Therefore, until and unless any crimeis} registered, which is^{cognizable, and Police requirethe presence'} only by following^{due process, petitioner should be called to the} Police Station.

¶31

Writ Petition^{isaccordinglydisposed of'Pending} misceilaneous^{petitions shall stand closed'}

¶32

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' sEcrLN oFFlcER

¶33

To,

¶34

1 The Station House^{Officer, KushaigudaP S-} - -. 2 o;;"Cc i; s;ikiAn^{Palakurthi Advocate} LoPpcL^. 3 iffi d6t'i"ih"^{dFto.. rloniu'High bourt ior the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad.^(OUT) 4. Trfuo CD CoPies CHR <sup>.j-

HIGH COURT

DATED:14t09t2020

ORDER

1 tle S I6
q
oo 2 2 SEP 2U0 C)
il
*
c
t,1 s AT

¶39

W.P.No.14673 of 2020

¶40

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS