Partly allowed

Chennamadhavuni Goutham v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC2 Dec 2020WP/20733/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged police interference in domestic disputes and harassment by family members under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court disposed of the petition by directing police not to interfere in the domestic dispute while reserving the right to investigate the registered crime.

What did the court decide?

Directing police not to interfere in the inter se dispute between petitioner and unofficial respondents but allowing investigation into the crime registered by the fourth respondent.

Chennamadhavuni Goutham Vs The State of Telangana and 5… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 20733 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chennamadhavuni Goutham, S/o. C.Shasidhar Raju, Age.32 years, Occ. Software Employee, Rl/o. P.No.772 773, D.No.202, White Archid Apartment, Copal Nagar, Hydernagar, KPHB, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

2 The Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Police Comm issio nerate.

¶12

Mr.Ravikiran, S/o. Not Known to the petitioner, Occ. Sub lnspector of Police, Miyapur Police Station Office. Miyapur Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶13

Vikasakavi Anupama, W/o. Chennamadhavuni Goutham, Age. 35 years Occ. House Wife, R/o. C-1, Neelam Apartment, Ferrozguda, Bowenpalli, Hyderabad

¶14

Vikasakavi Aneerudh, S/o. Vijaya Rama Raju, Age. about 38 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, R/o. C-1, Neelam Apartment, Ferrozguda, Bowenpalli, Hyderabad

¶15

Vikasakavi Vijaya Rama Raju, S/o. Not Known to the Petitioner, Age. about 71 years, Occ. Retired Govt Employee, R/o, C-1, Neelam Apartment, Ferrozguda, Bowenpalli, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent more particularly 3rd respondent in interfering with petitioner's life and liberty at the instance of the respondents Nos.4 to 6 without any valid and^justifiable cause and threatening petitioner with dire consequences and compelling the petitioner to dance to the tunes of the un-official respondents their family numbers as being illegal arbitrary and Unconstitutionals apart from violative of Articles 14, 1 9 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with petitioner's and his family members personal life and liberty without folLowing any due process of law in the interest of the justice.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

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 respond ents/police not to harass the petitioners either^physically or mentally under the guise of investlgation withoul the presence of their lawyer as contemplated under Atlicle 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and by duly following CRPC,^pending disposal of the above writ petition in interest of^justice.

Contd. . ..

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

Between:

Vikasakavi Anupama, W/o. Chennamadhavuni Goutham, Age. 35 years Occ. House Wife, R/o. C-1, Neelam Apadment, Ferrozguda, Bowenpalli, Hyderabad

¶25

Vikasakavi Aneerudh, S/o. Vijaya Rama Raju, Age. about 38 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, R/o. C-1 , Neelam Apartment, Ferrozguda, Bowenpalli, Hyderabad

¶26

Vikasakavi Vijaya Rama Raju, S/o. Not Known to the Petitioner, Age. about 71 years, Occ. Retired Govt Employee, R/o. C-1, Neelam Apartment, Ferrozguda, Bowenpalli, Hyderabad.

¶27

.... Petitioners/ Respondents 4 to 6 AND

¶28

Chennamadhavuni Goutham, S/o. C.Shasidhar Raiu, Age, 32 years, Occ. Software Employee, R/o. P.No,772 773, D.No.202, White Archid Apartment, Copal Nagar, Hydernagar, KPHB, Hyderabad.

¶29

.... RespondenU Petitioner

¶30

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

¶31

The Station House Officer, lr/iyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Police Co m m iss io n erate.

¶32

Mr.Ravikiran, S/o. Not Known to the petitioner, Occ. Sub lnspector of Police, I/iyapur Police Station Office. Miyapur Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶33

...Respondents/ Respondents

¶34

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 Respondent SHO Miyapur to give police protection to go to petrtioner's flat to enable her to collect the petitioner's belongings i.e., Passport Educational Certificates Clothes etc., and

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARESH SUNKARA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: AGP FOR HOME

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None Appeared

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6: SRI C.M.R. VELU

¶39

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

¶41

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶42

WRIT PETITION No.20733 of 2O2O

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

Hcard learned counsel lor petitioner, learned Assrstant GovernmenL Pleader for Home and learned counsel for respondent Nos 4 to 6.

¶45

This writ petition is filed alleging that the third respondentStation House Officer, Miyapur Police Station is interfering with life and liberty of petitioner at the instance of respondent Nos 4 to 6 and threatening him with dire consequences, compelling him to dance to the tunes of unofficial respondents and their family members and the same is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶46

As per the averments of the counter affidavit filed by the lourth rcspor-rdent, it is stated that based on lhe complaint lodged bv her, crimc No.1 166 of 2020 u'as registered in Mil,apur Police Stalion undcr Section 498 IPC, read u'itl-r Section 3 ar-rd 4 of Dou'ry Prohibition Act on 14.1 1.2020.

¶47

Since crime is reported, police are bound to investigate into crime and in the process of investigation, if police are questionlng the petitioner or calling for information from him, it does not amount to interference in the life and liberty of the petitioner.

¶48

However, police have to confine their investigation into the crime reported against the petitioner and they shal1 not interfere with the inter se dispute between the petitioner and lourth respondent.

¶49

--)

¶50

Accordinglv, this u'rit petition is disposed of, directing the police not to interfere in the irzter se dispr_rte ber\.een thc petitioner and unoflicial respondents. However, the1, are entitled to investigate into the crime registered as crime No.1166 of 2O2O reportcd b1,, the fourth respondcnt. pcn<iing miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/. M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

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

¶56

The Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate.

¶57

One CC to Sri. Naresh Sunkara, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

One C.C. to Sri. C.lV.R. Velu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

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

¶60

Two CD Copies

Prk

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211212020

o ?. thlE Sf4
(
+
Iq J 11 DEC|]W z

$
tj€spi, cHr,?

¶65

ORDER

¶66

WP. No. 20733 ol 2020

¶67

Disposing of the WP.

¶68

f)
<br>

Chennamadhavuni Goutham v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennamadhavuni Goutham 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

Uradi Laxmi Vs Mr. Ch. Srinivas

Shaziya Tasneem Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. N.Sandhya Kumari Vs Mr.Animesh Bharati

Paidakula Komuraiah Vs M/s Shriram Chit Pvt. Ltd.

Eluri Sreenivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society(Group-Ii) Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others