Allowed

Mudu Veeranna v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC8 Sept 2020WP/15031/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 21 of the Constitution and an interim application under Section 151 CPC. The Court held that summoning the petitioner based solely on an oral complaint without registering a Crime Diary entry was illegal and directed the police not to harass or interfere with the petitioner's personal liberty. The main petition was disposed of and

What did the court decide?

Directed the police not to harass or cause hardship to the petitioner without allowing due process of law by not calling him to the police station.

Mudu Veeranna Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY .THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15031 OF 2020

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

Mudu Veeranna, S/o M. Lalu, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.16-10-66/A, Shivanagar Warangal - 506 002, T.S.

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Warangal, Warangal District

¶13

The Station House Officer, Hanamkonda Police Station. Warangal District.

¶14

Sangem Deepa Krishna, D/o S. Rajamallu, Aged aboul24 years, Occ.Law Student, R/o Allipur Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶15

S. Rajamallu, S/o Not known to the petitionerAged about 42yeas, R/o Allipur Village, Chinnakodur I/andal, Siddipet District.

¶16

S.Rajeshwari, W/o S.Rajamallu, Aged. Major, Occ. Housewife, R/o Allipur Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue writ order or direction especially one in the Nature of Writ of [t4andamus declaring the aclion of the 3rd respondent in rnterfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner and calling him to the police station regularly is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere with personal liberty of the petitioner and not to harass him by calling to the police station i.e. SHO, Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal District.

¶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 3rd respondent not to interfere with personal liberty of the^petitioner and not to harass him by calling him to the police station i.e. SHO, Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal District, pending disposal of the main writ^petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Ch. RAVINDER

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6:-------

¶24

The Court nradc thc lollou ing: OIIDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN^RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.15O31 OF 2O2O

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1to3.

¶29

Petitioner alleges that even though no crime is regrstcred against him, at the instance of respondents 4 to 6, the Station House Officer, Hanamkonda Police Station, the 3'd respondent, is calling the petitioner to the police station and harassirrg and humiliating him affecting his life and liberty and the same is illegal.

¶30

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions lurnished by the Station House OlTicer, Hanamkonda Police Station, submits that respondent No.4 hcrein came to the police station and complained that petitioner promised to marry her but he did not marry and basc'd on the said oral complaint. police called the petitioner to the police station to ascertain the trr-le facts.

¶31

Admittedly, so far no crime is registered. It u.as onh, an oral complaint and no GD Entry is made. Therefore, police could not have called the petitioner to the police station based on some inlormation furnished by an individual and hence the entire action is ex facie illegal. Therefore, the respondent - police are directed not to harass and cause hardship to the petitioner u,ithout lbilowing due process of law.

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending

¶33

miscellaneous petitions shail stand closed.

¶34

SD/-N,CHANDRA SEKH ASSISTANT RE TRAR

,TRUE COPY'

SEC OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶39

The Commissioner of Police, Warangal, Warangal District

¶40

The Station House Officer, Hanamkonda Police Station. Warangal District.

¶41

One CC to Sri Ch. Ravinder, Advocate IOPUC]

¶42

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶43

Two CD Copies

SM \ l--

(

HIGH^COURT

DATED:08/09/2020

ORDER

WP.No.15031^{of 2020}

¶50

1 H E rA i4:
Y
,J 16 SEP 2m0 ,a
*
sP.-1TC

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WP

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

s >6

Mudu Veeranna v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudu Veeranna v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Anjaiah Vs the State of Tg

P.Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Palle Sankaraiah Vs The Commissioner of Police and 3 Others

Vasi Deva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

A.Radhakrishna Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

V.Bhoomesh Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others