Disposed

Meghvath Alivelu Mangamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Jan 2024WP/1550/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking declaration that police summoning for a family dispute was illegal. The High Court directed police to follow Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines before detaining individuals involved in civil disputes, without adjudicating the merits of the underlying dispute.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.4 to follow Section 41-A of CrPC and Arnesh Kumar guidelines regarding summoning and presence of petitioners for investigation.

Meghvath Alivelu Mangamma Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^'t550 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

MEGHVATH ALIVELU MANGAMMA, Wo. Late Venkat Ram, Age. 55 Years, Occ. Govt. Employee, R/o. Flat No. 62, Vasundhara Vihar, SLBC Post, Akkalai Gudem, Nalgonda Dist.

¶9

DHARAVATH ANIL KUMAR NAIK, S/o Late Venkat Ram, Age. 32 Years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Fl/o. Flat No. 62, Vasundhara Vihar, SLBC Post, Akkalai Gudem, Nalgonda Dist.

¶10

VADITIA GOVIND, Sio.Late Vaditia Ammu, Age. 45 Years, Occ. Business, No.7-3111lP-6lA,/1, Sarigama City, Near Veda Convention, Manneguda, R.R. Dist.

¶11

...PETIT!ONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Hyderabad T.S.

¶16

The lnspector of Police, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶17

Amboth Ravi, S/o Laliah Age.48 Years, Occ. Driver, R/o 5-8-50/1375, Plot no. 113, Sdpuram, Sagar Complex, BN Reddy Nagar, R.R. Dist.

¶18

Amboth Rajeshwai @ Jhansi, D/o Amboth Ravi Age. 30 Years, Occ. Nil,^Rl/o 5-8-50/137S, Plot no. 113, Sripuram, Sagar Complex, BN Reddy Nagar,^R.R. Dist.

¶19

Amboth Bujji, Wo Amboth Ravi Age. 48 Years, Occ. House wife,^Ri/o 5-8R.R.

¶20

50/1375,^plbt no. 113, Sripuram, Sagar Complex, BN^ReddyNagar, Dist.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased toto issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more^particularly in the

¶23

nature of mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondent no.4 and 5ⁱⁿ involving in civil disputes and trying to apprehend^petitioner illegally, as illegal, arbitrary and violation Article 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and^violation principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to take legal steps in curtailing the illegal activities^{of the Respondent no. 5 to 7.}

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

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 3rd Respondent to take appropriate legal steps to curtail the illegal activities of the respondent no. 4 in iltegally trying to apprehend^petitioner threat to settle the issue with the respondent no. 5 to 7.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.KARUNA SAGAR

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.155O of 2o24

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:"...to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in involving civil disputes and trying to apprehend the petitioner illegally, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 3O0-A of the Constitution of India and violation of principles of natural justice..."

¶33

The case of the petitioners is that in the month of August, 2023, respondent Nos.S to 7 have approached the petitioners for marriage alliance of respondent No.6 with petitioner No.2, who is son of petitioner No.1 and after due discussions both the families have finalised the said alliance and agreed to perform the engagement between respondent No.6 and petitioner No.2 in the month of November, 2O23, thereafter, disputes arose between the petitioners and respondent Nos.S to 7, which necessiated to break the alliance. The grievance of the petitioners is that respoidEnt Nos.5 to 7 before having any relationship with

-'.1,,'z

CVBR, J Wp 1550_2024

the petitioners have foisted false cases against them and acting on the complaint submitted by them, respondent No.4 is frequently summoning them to the police station and forcing them to enter into an agreement/settlement as per the terms dictated by respondent Nos.s to 7.

¶39

karned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that respondent No.5 is not having any power or authority to force the petitioners to enter into a settlement with respondent Nos.5 to 7.

¶40

In view of the above submissions, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the inter se disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 7, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing respondent No.4 to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 4l-A of Cr.p.C. and also the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Blhorr, if the presence of the

¶41

11zor+; a scc zz:

¶42

¶43

C\tsR, J wp_1550 2024

¶44

petitioners is required for the purpose of investigation any crlme.

¶45