Disposed

Chatar deer Singh , Honey v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Nov 2020WP/18556/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging police harassment and violation of Article 21 due to summons without an FIR, the Telangana High Court disposed of the matter by granting liberty to the police to investigate by following due procedure.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of granting liberty to police to investigate Crime No. 250 of 2020 by following due procedure.

Chatar deer Singh , Honey Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IMONDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WR N :18 56 0F 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chatar Beer Singh @ Honey, S/o. Harbans Singh Bhasin, Aged about 47^years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o. 1005 - Block'H', Pebbal City, Hyderabad-50009'1.

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-04.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Station House Officer, PS Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 I\rlandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in harassing the Petitioner by calling him to police station Chikkadpally when there is no FIR registered against him as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents that in all the cases where the persons are not shown as Accused should not be harassed or threatened.

¶16

lA NO:^'l OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section^'15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim directions directing the Respondent No.3 not to harass the Petitioner when there is no FIR registered against h!m pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CMR VELU

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO. 18556 OF 2O2O

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

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

¶24

This writ petition is filed alleging that even though petitioner is in no-way concerned with Crime No. 250 of 2O2O ol Chikkadpally police station, he is being harassed and humiliated by the police alleging that he is also party to the gaming act committed by the accused 1 to 3 in the above crime.

¶25

When the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader informed the Court that though petitioner was not shou,n as accused initially, based on the confessional statements made, now a memo is filed before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to add the petitioner as one of the accused in Crime No. 250 of 2O2O and police are awaiting orders. He further states that due procedure as contemplated under 1aw will be followed in conducting the investigation into the crime.

¶26

Having regard to the fair submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader, writ^petition is disposed of^{grantingliberty to the} police to investigate Crime No. 25O of 2O2O by following^{due procedureas} required by law. No costs. Miscellaneous^{petitionsif any pending, stand} closed.

¶27

SD/-K.O SIM ASSISTANT^RE TRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER

¶28

to",. ,n" Principal Secretary, Home Department' State of Telangana' Secretariat' Hvderabad-04.

¶29

z. ifret6.i*iJsioner^{of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad'} 5. i.n; 5i;ii";'iJor."^{otti""t,PS chikkadpellxHvderabad'}

¶30

One CC to^{Sri CMR Velu, Advocate[oPUUl} ^ 5. i;; 66slo^{oito, nome' Highcouit for the state of Telansana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶31

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112020

ORDER

WP.No.18556 of 2020

H E S (r
k
tl(
oo 2 0 Nov 2020
c
J.
*

¶38

DISPOSING^{OF THEWP}

¶39

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶40

4
LI

Chatar deer Singh , Honey v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chatar deer Singh , Honey 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

Smt Selam Venkatramana, Vs The Excise and Prohibition Department

Mystic Hills Owners Association, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Konstruct Reality India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana and 6 others

Rathlavath Rekya Nayak Vs The State of Telangana

Ravipati Pushpalatha,Prakasam Dist Vs S.P,Mahabubnagar,and 4

Smt. Allada Neelamma, Vs The Govt. of Ap rep.by by its Principal Secretary to Govt.