Dismissed

Batchu Phani Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Mar 2022WP/11508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana examined a writ petition challenging the police for calling petitioners to the station without registering a preliminary crime. The Court directed the police to investigate in accordance with law and refrain from harassment if the petitioners were not involved in the crime.

What did the court decide?

Respondent police directed to investigate the subject crime in accordance with the law and not to harass or take coercive measures against the petitioners if they had no role in the crime.

Batchu Phani Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE rsptirli 6liii"oj^{jllSjl!,*i Ar HYDERABAD}

¶3

i,4ONDAy.THE SEVENTT-1 DAy OE [4AReE rWO r,TOUSAND OrO arar"r" ffi-

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE OR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

WRIT PE TITION NO: 'I 150 B OF 20 22

¶7

Between:

¶8

2 ;ifll#i1:,,ii"iff gr.lifl ilri:nf [-,,-i,,rE::r["";.;,: tr'f i[:f,1dfu.,t1hlir(i{{ffil'fi^,ii.t}qmlry",f i,r"{:#

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETtTtoNER(s)

¶11

J!:,:,':J:, iLl? alnoTol,'"0 by its^princjpal Secretary, Home Department,

¶12

2 The Commissioner of police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy

¶13

' Ili.,ifl?A:r:lse^{officer, Jawahar Nasar potice} starion, Kapra, Rachakonda

¶14

"^"",fii[-,g"]]il!ai,Bii"{1.ffi^$^ryushifir}."i,tH.]lisril," 'ffi{{',8#hil,?:H:gffi ;.$::,;gilll":,"j,J"i,.",;1;"1-,,,n",

¶15

';i#N:%s.i,,.,:i:;::s:ff :ffi .?z"Hx[:,"f ;i;B",,ii,i,T;I?t"i?i,f i*,"

¶16

¶17

fi :L::olia;:ii5"i.:1|;3%Ij,",llJ.?"t-P-Deeparrment,por jcesrarion.Jawahar

¶18

B 5,',#l,i'$;&?l,il|;l[.,:[i_3:ttBi[,;?"SJ;,oE?"l.menrpo,icesrarion

¶19

:.:,:,:ilisl:lTi"^{T:? ::g,, ?j",ji#:]1T,[:} ;,:^ r*,.r=;':il::T: ffii1rn;r+li*+-+:l,ffi rfffi,[$t!:,ff :diii#i**ifrii*il"'fi *iF]iT:,.ffi

¶20

IA o 1 F 0 2

¶21

¶22

Pe(rtion under Sectron 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdav,r^.,ted .n supporr of rre oe.l,lro1 rre nign;"r; ;;r.; 'espondents No 4 ro 8 ,.ror ro rnrerfere wirn tne ife;;; ,;";; Ji rn" preaseo p"r,t,o""r= lo drre6l *ir.o,r,." :'l;l;: Jiiri:1'"",'J;",,';;li,o,;i;o^{,.i", ."0? :;".'iI::procedure pend,ns}

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: sRI. SoMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: Gp FOR HOME (TG)

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to g: NON APPEARED

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶28

R P 2

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos,4 to B in calling the petitioners to the police station without registering any crime against them, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

H.eard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record.

¶32

The case and contention of the petitioners is that without there being registration of any crime against them, the respondent- police are unnecessarily calling them to the police station and harassing them, which is illegal and arbitrary and seeks a direction to restrain the respondent_ police from interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioners, so also, calling them to the police station, etc.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home, on instructions would submit that on a complaint given by one

¶34

¶35

Chada Sravan Reddy, a case in Crime No.1151 of 2021 of lawahar Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, was registered against Palla Parameshwar Reddy and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 42O of IPC. The accused mentioned in the said complaint are absconding. It has come to light that the petitioners herein are in contact with the absconding accused and made several phone calls to them, who are statloned in Mumbai. Therefore, the petitioners were called to the police station to investigate into the subject crime.

¶36

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation.

¶37

Under these circumstances, the respondent- police are directed to investigate into the subject crime, strictly, in accordance with law and shall not harass or take any coercive measures against the petitioners, if there is no role of the petitioners in the subject crime.

¶38

With the above direction, the Writ Petitlon is disposed of.

¶39

¶40

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶41

petition, shall stand closed.

¶42

¶43

To,

¶44

SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REG]STRAR //TRUE COPY// .,/ SECTION OFFICER

¶45

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

¶46

2 The Commissioner of District police. Rachakonda Comm issionerate, Ranga Reddy

¶47

3 The Station House Officer. Jawahar Nagar police Station, Kapra, Rachakonda Commissionerate

¶48

4 One CC to SRt SOMAVARAPU SATYANARAYANA Advocate lOpUCl

¶49

Two CCs to GP FOR HotltE (TG) .High Court for the State of Telangana IOUTI

¶50

6 Iwo CD Coples

¶51

7 One Spare Copy

¶52

N4IUA '..) }"* \l\t.\

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710312022

ORDER

WP.No.11508 of 2022

t;; ST.ri; c
r) il
(
o
O 28 l4AR2$22 ;
j.
*
'i.

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o#/

Batchu Phani Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Batchu Phani Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bonagiri Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana, And 7 Others

S. Surya Prakash Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Kola Indra Karan Vs Union of India

Taduka Suman Vs Alia Dhanunjaya

Sayan Chakravarthy Vs The State of Telangana

Thakur Seethal Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others