Disposed

Suchit R Dubey v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Dec 2023WP/20952/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the police summoning the petitioners for investigation without a registered complaint regarding property disputes. The court directed the police to refrain from interfering with civil rights and to follow due process before summoning the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 (Police officers) directed not to interfere with petitioners' civil rights; if presence is required for investigation, due process of law must be followed.

Suchit R Dubey Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TI-,IREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20952 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Suchit R Dubey, Sio. Late Sri Raja Dubey, aged 61 year, Occ. Retired

¶9

Vaibhav Raj Dubey, S/o. Sri Suchit Dubey, aged 27 yearc, Occ. Employee,

¶10

(Both are Fl/o.Madhu Park Ridge, Flat No.15/1, Block-A, Suncity, Cyberabad)

¶11

.....PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

The Commissioner, Commissioner of Hyderabad, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner (west zone), Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶16

The S.H.O., P.S Langerhouz, Ranga Reddy.

¶17

The Circle lnspector (Crime), P.S. Langerhouz, Hyderabad.

¶18

Shilpi Syphool, W/o. Charli Syphool, aged 56 years, Occ ; Teacher, R/o. Laxenburgersta, 1381717, 1 100, Vienna, Austria.

¶19

...RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 6

¶20

Petition Under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 & 5 summoning the Petitioners to the^police station under the guise of investigation without following the^procedure of the law. and without registering any complaint against the Petitioners is an act of illegality, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further direct Respondent No.2 and 3 in turn direct the Respondent No.4 & 5 not to summon the Petitioners to the police station.

I l I I

l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to summon the petitioners to the porice station under the pretext of investigation without foflowing the procedure of the law till hearing of the main writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the^petitioners : SRI A.L.RAJU

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : AGp FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: _--

¶28

The Court made the fottowing ORDER

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶31

WRITPETITION NO. 209s20F 2023

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

¶34

'......to rbsue Wit of Mandamus bg declaing the action of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 summoning the Petitioners to the police station under the gube of inuesttgation uithout foLtowing the procedure of the Lau and u.tithout registering ang complaint ogainst the Petitioners is an act of illegalitg, arbitrary and" uncon-stitutional and further direct Respondent Nos.2 and. 3 in turn direct the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to summon the Petitioners to the police station . . . ..."

¶35

The case of the petitioner No.2 is that his mother is owner

¶36

of property bearing FIat No.15/1, First Floor, A Block, Madhu park Ridge, Bandlaguda jagir Village, Ranga Reddy and the said property was gifted to him by way of registered g;ft deed oide document No.427L of 2017 and prior to execution of the gift deed, mother of petitioner S executed un-registered gift deed in his favour in the year, 2012 itself and there are disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.6 with regard to the execution of gift deed in his favour. The grievance of the petitioners is that at the instigation of respondent No.6, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are frequently sununoning them to police station and forcing them to

¶37

¶38

¶39

enter into settlement as per the terms dictated by respondent^No.6

¶40

with regard to partition of the property.

¶41

3 This Court, on 04.08.2023 directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out personal notice to respondent No.6 and complying with the orders of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners took out personal notice to respondent No.6 and even after receipt of the notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.6.

¶42

4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

¶43

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that acting on the complaint submitted by respondent No.6, the respondents-police have registered a case in Crime No.225 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420,468 and 474 of IPC against the petitioners and only for the purpose of investigation, the petitioners were surunoned to the police station.

¶44

5 In view of the said submissions, this Court, deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere with the civil rights of the petitioners in

¶45

¶46

any manner/ except in accordance with law. However, if the

¶47

presence of the petitioners is required in any case, the respondents-

¶48

police are directed to follow due process of law.

¶49

With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed

¶50

of. No order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, rf any,

¶52

pending shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION FFICER

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Commissioner of Hyderabad, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶58

3 The Deputy Commissioner (west zone), Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 4 The S.H.O., P.S Langerhouz, Ranga Reddy.

¶59

5 The Circle lnspector (Crime), P.S. Langerhouz, Hyderabad.

¶60

6 Two CCs to GP for Horne, High Court for the State of Telangana at

¶61

Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶62

I7 One Two CD CC to CopiesSri A.L.Raju, Advocate [OPUC]

SA
GJP

lF Il!'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411212023

ORDER

WP.No.20952 of 2023

1 HE S7A 14:
(
e
oo 1 0 JAi| 202{ o z
,tr
*{,'
t
Og .s FAr C"r('.!

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

Ooqo" 6<br>Gt9-

Suchit R Dubey v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchit R Dubey 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

Nevuri Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Sikinder Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Pulla Anwesh Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Ch Giridhar Babu Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sabiha Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Challa Balaji Vs The State of Telangana