Disposed

Boya Shaik Shavali v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jun 2024WP/13089/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition and miscellaneous application seeking a stay on police investigation actions against a bedridden petitioner accused of cheating. The court directed the police respondent to follow due process under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and refrain from insisting the petitioner's presence at the police station unless strictly necessary for the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Police respondent directed to follow due process and not insist on petitioner's presence at police station unless necessary for investigation; petitioner directed to cooperate.

Boya Shaik Shavali Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13089 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Boya Shaik Shavali, S/o Boya Adi Balanna, aged about 43^years,Occ. Constable, Rlo 4-11137, Himagiri Nagar colony,. Hydershakote, Ranga^Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad Commissionerate, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Nizamabad lV Town Police Station,^Nizamabad District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus to declare the action of the respondents in harassing the petitioner by calling to the police station even though he is bed ridden and frequently visiting the house of the^petitioner and terrorizing the family members of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without following due plocedure of law, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, violative of fundamental rights and principles of natural^justice besides violative of Article 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the^respondents 2 and 3 including their subordinates not to harass the^petitioner and his^family members without following due^procedure as contemplated under^law.

¶16

lA NO:^'f OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in^{the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to take any coercive^{stepsto arrestthe} petitioner, harass by calling to the police station including the^petitioner's family members, pending disposal of the writ^petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.^PREETHY SWARNA^LATHA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP^{FOR HOME}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

,l ...

¶22

HONOURABLE SR!JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.l3089 OF 2024

¶24

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶25

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 - Station House Officer, Nizamabad lV Town Police Station, Nizamabad, in frequently calling the petitioner to the Police Station though he is bed ridden, as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶26

lt is submitted that the petitioner and his family members are being harassed by respondent No,3 in connection with First lnformation Report No.264 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 4OO and 506 of lPC.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Smt. Dasari Poshawa lodged a complaint against the petitioner in connection with sale of an independent house in Plot No.44, admeasuring 200 sq. yards, in Survey No.74 situated at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. lt is alleged that the petitioner offered to sell the said house to the de facfo complainant for sale consideration of Rs.1,'15,00,0001 and the de facfo complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,05,00,0001 and agreed to pay the remaining amount at the time of registration, however the petitioner - accused is not showing any interest to register the prope(y in favour of the de facto complainant. That on 05.08.2023, at about 1400 hours, the de facto complainant

¶28

¶29

'.i

¶30

was invited to Nikil Sai Hotel for lunch with elders Sri Vanam Srinivas and Sri Jala Saibaba Ayar and that when the de faclo complainant asked them about registration of the house, all of them have threatened her with dire consequences.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner met with an accident and is undergoing treatment and now bedridden. Despite knowing the situation of the petitioner and his admission in Gandhi Hospital, wherein he was operated by insertion of rod on his left leg and left hand, respondent No.3 is frequently visiting the house of the petitioner and harassing him and his family members

¶32

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the allegations made against respondent No.3 are incorrect. Due process of law is being followed while conducting investigation in Crime No.264 o'f 2023. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C was issued to the petitioner through Registered Post as the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation and not coming forward to receive the notice. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner approached this Court by making false allegationslhat^" after registration of Crime No.264 of 2023, the lnvestigation Officer enquired with the witnesses and sent the duty Constables on 20.08.2023 and 26.12.2023 to the house of the petitioner, but the

¶33

¶34

petitioner was not at home. Respondent No.3 has made an application for call data of the petitioner on 26.04.2024 to verify his call details. Though the case is registered in 2023, the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation and intentionally approached this court for prolonging the investigation.

¶35

ln the above facts and circumstances and taking into consideration that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C has been issued, respondent No.3 is directed to follow the due process of law while conducting investigation in Crime No.264 of 2023 and also not to insist the petitioner for his presence in the Police Station, unless necessary for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the investigation and respond to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

¶38

in the writ etition stand closed.

¶39

SD/- T.JAY^ASREE ASSI^STANTREGIST

¶40

//TRUE^COPY//

¶41

SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To, 1. The^{Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' State of}

¶43

,. Ifi3"33lir'ssioner^{of Police,Nizamabadcommissionerate' Nizamabad'} . il?H1ilt"''l"il!l^{o*,""', Nizamabadlv rown Police station'Nizamabad} District.

¶44

District.

¶45

o 5,iJ'c'c^{to M/s. PREETHYswARNA LATHA' Advocate IoPUCI} 5. Two^{CCsto GP FoR Ho"l'rE'-iigi;co"ttor the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶46

o Two CD^CoPies

¶47

BSR LS 5

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0310612024

ORDER

c 1|re S14 ,(l
+
-) (l
0 s lu[ ?ttl
t
c/€ o4Tc HF-o

¶52

WP.No.13089 of 2024

¶53

d,..

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶55

WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

@rd

Boya Shaik Shavali v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boya Shaik Shavali 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

Vallala Venu alias Vallala Venumadhav Vs The State of Telangana

Mala Narsimulu Vs The State of Telangana

Sidam Prabhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Shakeel Vs The State of Telangana

Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society (Ttcs) Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Mohsin Sultan, Vs The State of Telangana