The petitioner challenged the legality of police summons for investigation, claiming the complainant was not a victim. The court noted a case was already registered and dismissed the writ petition.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO:'16657 OF 2022
Between:
Bandi Rajakumar, D/o Samaiah Agreed 33 years, Occ- Business R/O H. No. 19-36/3 Vivekananda Colony Near Gas Godown Huzuraabad Karimnagar
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of IMandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3, who is threatening and causing immense mental tension by summoning the petitioner, though the complaint is not registered on victims name, time and again to come down to Huzurabad P.S Urban on the plea of investigation which is illegal and arbitrary any in violation of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, besides in violation of naturaljustice without following dueprocess of law, i.e., in absence of any complaint from the victim or orders from any court of law. Consequently direct the Respondent No.3 Not to harass thepetitioner in absence of any complaint
from victim or court orders against thepetitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of lhe naturaljustice. Besides in violation of Principles of Natural justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. V.DURGA NAGESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No's.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No.4:NONE APPEARED
The Coud made the following: ORDER
{
THE HONORABLESMT JUSTICE LALITHAKANNEGANTI
W.P.No.16 657ol 2022
ORDER
This writpetitionis filed questioning the actionof respondent No.3, whois threateningand causing immense mental tensionby summoningthe petitioner though the complainant is not a victimand time andagain asking the petitionerto come to HuzurabadPolice Station Urbanfor the purpose of investigation' as illegal and arbitrary'
LK. J w.P.No.16657 of 2022
2
under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused, he is not available. He submits that except conducting investigation in the said case, the police never interfered with the civil disputes.
stand dismisseC
SDI-G.SIREESHA
\
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
GB BS q
HIGH COURT
DATED:01 10412022
)
1 gE S Ta; €
(
6
o 1 6 JUN 20?2
az
.C
o'.-i1P t, I r.i'
ORDER
WP.No.16657 of 2022
DISMISSING THE WP
WITHOUT COSTS.
@qt'6 3o---<W"
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus to restrain the police from summoning a petitioner for investigation when the complaint was filed by an unofficial complainant and not registered
Whether summoning a person for investigation without complaint from a victim or court orders violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Bandi Rajakumar
The State of Telangana
The Commissioner of Police
The Station House Officer
Sarangapani Nanda
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
