Disposed

Sudha Srivastava v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2024WP/2472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a business proprietor complaining that the Commissioner summoned her without a registered complaint or notice, threatening to implicate her in false cases. The court restrained unsanctioned summoning.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to summon petitioner to office without registration of crime or notice under Section 41-A CrPC if offences are punishable under seven years.

Sudha Srivastava Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2472 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sudha Srivastava, Wo.Vinay Kumar Sinha Aged about 51^years, Occ Business R/o.18052 GC Grand, Near Amarpali Royal^Vaibhav Park, lndirapuram, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh^{- 2O1} 014-

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

2 The Director General of Police, Government of Telangana Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶14

3 The Commissioner, Cyberabad Commissionerate Cyberabad,^R.R.District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more^particularly one in lhe nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the actionof the Respondent No.3in} calling the petitioner to attend his office^{without issuing any summon/noticeto the} petitioner under the threat of foisting criminal case as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona I and contrary to the^{provisions of Cr.P.C. and consequently direct} the Respondent No.3 not to call the^petitioner to^{his office without issuing any} summon/notice or registration of any^{crime againstthe petitionerby following} due process of law.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

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 Respondent No.3 not to call the petitioner to his office without issuing any summon/notice or registration of any crime against the petitioner by following due process of law, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. JANARDHAN RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.2472 of 2o24

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that she is the proprietor of Srisitti Enterprises, which is having a valid registration certificate issued by the Government of lndia in FORM GST RtrG-06. [t is the further case of the peti[ioner that she entered into Cifferent agreements for various Government contracls for multiple types o[ works which include supply oi manpower, mid-day meal schemes with UP Government etc., and she has been doing business without any adverse remarks.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that without registration ol any case and without following the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, responclent No.3 is not only frequently calling the petitioner to atlend his o[[ce over phone but also threatening her to implicale in falsc cascs.

¶27

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submits that as on date no complaint whatsoever has been received against the petitioner and if any complainL is received against the pctitioncr, the rcspondents pollce u'ill follow the due procedure in accordance with law.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid submission, the i.r'rit^petition is disposed of dirccting Lhe respondents not Lo summon the

¶29

¶30

petitioner to the olfice of respondent No.3 withrtut registration of any crlme and if the presence of the petitioner :s required in any crrme and the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable belorv seven years, respondent lVo.3 shall ISSUC notice as required under Section 41-A of Cr.p.C and follow the guidelines framecr by the Hon,ble Supreme court in the case of Arnesh Kumar u. State of Bihart.

¶31

Pending miscellaneous applications, if :rny, shall stand closed. There shall be no ordcr as to costs.

¶32

¶33

SD/.A. PRATHIMA ASSISTANT REGISTRCR //TRUE COPY// l\ ^'N\ r

¶34

To,

¶35

SECTION OFBCER

¶36

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hvderabad.

¶37

The Direclor General of police, Government of Telangana Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, T.S. The Commissioner, Cyberabad Commissionerate Cyberabad, R.R. District

¶38

one cc ro SRt M. JANARDHAN nAo, A-;;;;j;t5du"c:t ti-5. Two Two CD CCs Copiesto Gp FoR HoN/E, High court roiGbiii"iii"rungrna. [OUT] BN

GJP

'^{zo t,{(8)} scc:z:

: 1 t

,t 'It

l J :

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010312024

ORDER

WP.No.2472 of 2024

:-'.<br>?-
i ,.)
1[ urr :r,t
*
i.' i'_ \ \r.:--\ _ . -. i'

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

L,
\o
\q
@o1tor
q6-

Sudha Srivastava v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Srivastava 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

Syed Khaja Ziyauddin Vs The State of Telangana

Surakanti Anupa Reddy Vs The State of Telengana

Ajmeera Poojitha Vs The Station House Officer

Amena Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Ajmeera Prahlad Vs State of Telangana

S. Shobha Vs The state of Telangana