Allowed

Kancharla Aravinda Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jan 2024WP/1167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the police summons as arbitrary and harassing his family. The High Court directed police to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Supreme Court guidelines specifically prohibiting the summoning of family members without a crime against them.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. guidelines and not summon family members unless a crime is registered against them.

Kancharla Aravinda Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REODY

¶6

WR]T PETITION NO: 1167 0F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kancharla {rgril9g Reddy, S/o: Malla Reddy, Aged 23 years, occ. Scooter Mechanic, Rlio H.No.6-1 6, Hemachandrapr_rrbm,^{-Bhadradradri} Kothagudem District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 T.he State of Telangana, rep by Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Superintendent of Police, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Kothagudem. 4 The Station House fficer, PS Palvorrcah, Palvoncha. Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the action of the 4th respondent in harassing the petitioner physically and mentally and forcing him to confess the theft which is not committee by him as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the 4tr' respondent not to call the petitioner or his family members to the police station rn the connection of theft that is not committed by him, in the interest of justice.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

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 4rh respondent not to call the petitioner or his family members to the police station in the connection of theft that is not cornrnitted by him, in the interest of justice.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

I I

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR^REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1167 OF 2o24

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The writ petition is hled seeking^{following relief:}

¶26

"...to pass an order, or^{direction, or writ inthe} nature of Mandamus duly declaring^{the actionof} the 4tt respondent in harassing the^petitioner physicalty and mentally and forcing him to confess the theft which is not committed^{by him as illegal,} arbitrary and against the^{principles of natural} justice and consequently direct the 4h respondent not to call the petitioner or^{his familymembersto} the police station in the connection^{of theft that is} not committed by hirn in the interest^{of justice and} to pass..."

¶27

2 The case of the petitioner is^{that the petitioner is a two-} wheeler vehicle mechanic and in the^{course of his business,he} repairs two-wheeler vehicles of the customers^{and handoverthe} same to the customers. It^{is the furthercase of the petitioner} the respondents have conhned him^{on 05.12.2023 without} disclosing any reasons and^{withoutregistrationof any crime.}

¶28

Learned Assistant Government^{PleaderforHome} appearing for respondents subrnits^{that a case in CrimeNo.43I} of 2023, dated 16.12.2023^{was registeredagainstthe petitioner} for the offences under Section 379 of^{I.P.C. and only for the} purpose of investigation, the^{petitioner was summoned to the} police station and the respondents^{will followttre due proccdure} of law.

¶29

¶30

cvBR, J W.P.No.7767 of 2024

¶31

¶32

In view of the above submissions, this Court, deems it appropriate to dispose of the wdt petition directing respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Courtⁱⁿ Anrcsh Kumar Vs. State o;f Blharr, if the^presence of^the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation, in any case. It is made clear that except the^petitioner, the respondents shall not summon his family members for the purpose of investigation in the absence of crime being registered against them.

¶33

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶34

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

l2o14l8^{SCC 273}

¶37

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

The Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶41

The Director General of Police,^police Head euarters, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶42

The superintendent of Porice, Bhadradri Kothaqudem District. Kothaoudem

¶43

The Station House Officer,^{pS patvoncah,} palv6ncha. Bh;ar;dri K;tt"Srii;, District.

¶44

One CC to Sri P. Rama Sharana_Sharma, Advocate tOpUCI

¶45

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for lhe State of ielangLna, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶46

Two CD Copies

TJ GJP $r

{ I

I :

i i i : i I t I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210112024

ORDER

WP.No.1167 of 2024

{ {I STATE o
(
tr.
I B riB 2$?[ ...)
Joo .:)
t
* DEsPAiC:

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶59

o.,.ru
Y
N"

Kancharla Aravinda Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kancharla Aravinda Reddy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peethamber Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Ali Bin Mohammed Bahakam Vs State of Telangana

Mekala Harshavardhan Vs The State of Telangana

Appala Ramesh,Andanot Vs State of Telangana,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,and 6

Satyanarayana Reddy, Vs The state of Telangana

Akshay Bohara Vs the State of Telangana