Disposed

Bandiki Venkateswarlu v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jul 2022CRLP/5869/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal petition filed by father and son seeking to quash police proceedings for offences under IPC Sections 354, 323, and 509. The Court restricted the requirement for personal appearance. It directed that arrest without following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines is prohibited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SHO Investigating Officer not to insist on personal appearance without written notice and not to arrest without following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Bandiki Venkateswarlu Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE^{CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{5869 OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bandiki Venkateswarlu, S/o.^{Late. B. Mallanna,Aged about 64 years'Occ'} Builder, Rio. H.No. 6-3-665/7,^{Flat No. 502, Lumbini Enclave,Somajiguda,} Hyderabad.

¶8

2 B6ndiki Madhav, S/o. B. Venkateswarlu.^{Aged about 22 years, O-cc Student,} R/o. H.No. 6-3-665/7, Flat No. 502'^{Lumbini Enclave,Somajiguda,} Hvderabad'

¶9

...pETrroNERs/AccusED

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State of Telangana, Rep, by^{its S.H.O, P.S Punjagutta,through Public} Prosecutor, Hi6h Court of Telangana^{at Hyderabad.}

¶12

,...ResPondenU ResPondent

¶13

2 Sarika, W/o. Sathyakanth,^{R/o. U.S.A, Occ House-wife,Age.3-4years} Presently Residin! at H.No. 6-3-665/7,^{Flat No. 502' Lumbini Enclave,} Somajiguda' Hyderabad

¶14

...RES'.NDENTi.oM,LA,NANT

¶15

Petition under Section⁴⁸² of^{cr.P.cprayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition, the High court may be} pleased to call for records relating to crime^{No. 303 of 2022, of Panjagutta PS,} pending on the file XIV ACtUM, At Hyderabad at^{Nampally to quash the same}

¶16

LA. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under section 482 of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition, the High courtmay be} pleased to dispense with filing of the original^{certifiedcopy of crime No.303.of} 2022, o't Panjagutta PS,^{pending on the file of XIV Additional chief lr,4etropolitan} I,4agistrate at Hyderabad.

¶18

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶19

Petition under section⁴⁸² of cr.P.c^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Nrlemorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition, the High courtmay be}

¶20

;

¶21

pleased to stay for all further proceedings in Crime No. 303 o'f 2022 of Panjagutta Police Station, pending on the file of XIV ACMM, at Hyderabad at Nampally including appearance of the^petitioners

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. PRAII/OD NEMALI, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

,.HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No,5869 of 20 aa

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 ald 2 in Crime No.303 of 2022 of paljagutta police Station, Hyderabad.

¶28

Heard the submission of Sri A.Ravi, advocate, representing Sri pramod Nemali, the iearneci counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistalt Public^prosecutor who is representing respondent No.1.

¶29

Basing on the complaint given by respondent No.2, a case v/as registered by the Station House Officer, Paljagutta police Station against the petitioners contending that they committed offences punishabre under Sections 354,323 and 509 IpC.

¶30

A perusal of the contents of the complaint discloses that respondent No.2-defacto complainant is the daughter of petitioner No.1 and sister of petitioner No.2 (petitioner I,,-..-

i I

I I I

2 Dr.CSL,^J CrtPNo.5869^{of 2O22}

¶35

No.2 being^{the steP-brotherof resPondent No'2-defacto} complainant)'

¶36

The learned^{counsel for the petitioners submitsthat} only due^{to trivial issue that happened between the family} members,^{respondentNo'2 gave a complaint against her} father and^{brother and indeed'they did not commit any} offence^{which attractsSection 354 IPC arrd it cannotbe} expected^{that a father and a brotherwould commitsuch} an offence.^{Learned counselalso submits that protection} has to^{be given to the petitionersfrom the Police who are} time and^{again callingthem to the PoliceStation and} harassing^them.

¶37

Learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutorstated that in} normal collrse,^{the Policewill not cali the alleged accused} to the Police^{Station. However, necessary orders in this} regard may^be Passed.

¶38

Considering the above^{submission made, this} Crimina.l^petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶39

¶40

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.5869 of 2022

¶41

(a) The Station House Officer, Panjagutta police Station, Hyderabad/lnvestigating Officer shall not insist for the personal appearance of the petitioners/accused during the course of investigation, unless he issues a notice in writing giving the reasons for ordering their appearance before the Investigating Officer.

¶42

(b) The petitioners shall not be arrested by the Station House Officer, Panjagutta^police Station, Hyderabad/ Investigating Officer except by following the procedure established by law, more particularly by following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the directions issued by the Hon'b1e Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar

¶43

Vs. State of Bihar and anothert.

¶44

B. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

R 20^{14st-a/ co,}

¶46

n s^{sr srn r'r?t5o?|FnsiH} //TRUE^COPY// e SECTION^OFFICER

¶47

¶48

tdtf,+i}Jf#""ffi i$.,d':l}fi;$ :: :ljr**:' ^': i tr Hvderabad^{(OU I )} E fwo CD CoPtes 6. on"^{SPare coPY} v

HIGH COURT

oATED:0610712022

ORDER

1 C s T r{.
q (
J
c),J 1 3 JUL 2022
I I
a<br>* D(. ,l AIC,

¶53

CRLP.No.5869 ol²⁰²²

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE CRL.P.

¶55

Bandiki Venkateswarlu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandiki Venkateswarlu v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Kaleem Vs The State of Telangana

Tejavath Surender, And 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Sowjanya Vs The State of T.S. and Another

Sri.Pola Saikumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sweta Agarwal and another Vs The State Of Telangana and another