Dismissed

Paridham Raju v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC7 Dec 2020WP/18069/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging alleged police harassment of the petitioner for detention regarding oral complaints without a crime registration. Noting that three crimes were already registered against the petitioner with investigation pending, the Court held the action was legal and directed the police to follow due procedure ignoring civil disputes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to investigate crimes by following due procedure and not to involve in civil disputes; liberty to petitioner to work out remedies against crime registration.

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

¶1

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

¶2

I\4ONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 18069 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Paridham Raju, S/o Ramulu, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business R/o H.No. 2-48, Toopranpet village and Post Choutuppal I/andal,Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Yadadri-Bhongir district. (Erstwhile, Nalgonda district)

¶12

The Station House Officer, Choutuppal P.S. Choutuppal Rachakonda, YadadriBhongir district (Erstwhile Nalgonda district)

¶13

.,,RESPONDENTS

¶14

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^particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in harassing the petitioner by calling him to the^police Station with a view to detain him in the Police Station from lVlorning to Evening at the behest of the oral complaints made by third parties without registration of any crime against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the police station frequently.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

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 not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the Police Station of the 3rd respondent without registration of any crime against the^{petitioner pending} disposal of the main Writ^petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. P. BOSU BABU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

-2-

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.18069 of 2O2O

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶25

This writ petition is filed alleging that police are interfering in inter se civil disputes between petitioner and^{private persons} and is being called to the police station by the 3rd respondent with a view to detain him in the police station from morning to evening, based on an oral complaint made by third parties, without registration of any crime, the same is i11ega1 and unconstitutional.

¶26

When the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader, informs the Court that against petitioner, three crimes are registered. First of the crime was registered on 05.03.2020 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (lPC) as Cr.No.96 of 2020. In fact petitioner fi1ed Crl.P.No.1917 ol 2020 to quash the said crime and the same is pending consideration of this Court.

¶27

The second crime was registered on 19 .O9.2020 as Cr.No.362 of 2O2O under Section 72O-B, 42O, 468 and 471 r/w.Section 34 IPC and again Cr.No.363 of 2O2O was registered under the very same provisions of law on the complaint lodged by different person. In Cr.No.363 of 2O2O, Section 41-A Cr.P.C., notice was issued on 2O.O9.2O2O. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, the matter stands at that stage.

¶28

Since three crimes are registered, police are bound to investigate into the crime and in the process of investigation into the crime, police can call upon the petitioner to attend to the police

¶29

-J

¶30

station. In fact as fairly submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader that in Cr.No.363 of 2O2O, already notice was issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., therefore, it can not be said that police are illegally calling the petitioner to the police station, even though no crime is registered against him.

¶31

Having regard to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law, aggrieved by registration of crimes. Police are directed to investigate into the crimes by following due procedure of law and not to involve in inter se civil disputes. Miscellaneous

¶32

petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶33

SD/.V.SUDHA

¶34

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶35

) SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

'1 . The Principal Secretary Home Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat buildings Hyderabad.

¶38

The Co=mmissioner of Police, Rachakonda^{Commissionerate, Yadadri-Bhongir} district. (Erstwhile, Nalgonda dsitrict)

¶39

The Staiion House Officer, Choutuppal^{P.S.Choutuppal Rachakonda, Yadadri-} Bhongir district^(Erstwhile Nalgonda district)

¶40

One dC to Sri. Podili Bosu Babu,^Advocate tOPUcl

¶41

Two CCs to GP for Home,^{High Courtfor the State of Telangana.} [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies.

PM^{.</sup> -}

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711212020

ORDER

WP.No.18069 of 2020

1 H e s T4
16 DEC 2020
* * "{<
T C
a

¶49

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶50

Xo"'

Paridham Raju v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paridham Raju v. The State of Telangana and 2 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 a Moiz Abbasi Vs Mr Kishan Naik

RamsettySudhakar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Cheguri Anitha Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Mohammed Mouse , Ohouse Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Sravan Kumar Routhu Vs The Union of India

Shahbaz Nawaz , Shahbaz Vs The State of Telangana