Disposed

Goranti Srinivas Reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Oct 2024WP/29461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection from police interference in their personal life over an FIR concerning a property transaction dispute. The court noted all offences were punishable up to seven years, and directed the investigating officer to comply with Section 41A CrPC procedure and the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3/Investigating Officer directed to comply with Section 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar guidelines; miscellaneous applications closed.

Goranti Srinivas Reddy Vs State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

t³¹⁸³ l

I l I I

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶5

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWENTY THIRDDAYOF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEB. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶8

WRIT PETITION^{NO:29 4610F 2024}

¶9

Between: 1. Goranti^{srinivas Reddy,s/o LateManmohan Reddy, Aged 60 years' occ} Business,

¶10

Smt.^{Goranti ApoorvaReddy, Wo Srinivas Reddy'Aged 50 years' Occ} Housewife,

¶11

Both are^{R/o. H No 16-2-738/Al&^ 2.,^FlatNo 502' TaikunResidency'} [;*"ftird,^{Malakpet, Hvderabad- 500036'}

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 State of Telanqana,^{Rep.by its Principal Secretary' Departmentof Home'} sliretariat Siifabad,^HYderabad'

¶15

2 The Commissioner^{of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate' Gachibowli'} Hyderabad

¶16

J TheStationHouseOfficer,BachupallyPoliceStation'Cyberabad Commissionerate

¶17

4 f; [tr1",''$1,}l:":'f.?Xt;ii:"ff^{l1**?i:9f, ff ]ffi ,I"f !i;'Sl"Business'}

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitution.of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{statedin ii"} 'irii'"ri-riLd therewith'^{the High Court may pe} pleased to issue^{a Writ oi Orderor direction more partlcularlyone in the nature} of writ of^{Mandamus,o""rrringth,; actionof the RespondentNo. 3 in.harasstng} the^{petitionersOy catting io if'" S';'p'f fy Police Station by interferinginto} personal life and^{riu".tv, tn"er"o"v} ni..,ii"i.g^{the petitioners to settle the civil} disoutes^{with the nesponaentftfl + f'tt"in citing-an FIR No 1031af 2024'daled} 406' ;20'^{506 r/w 34 IPC registeredon} ;b"-i;zo;l;;ijn" "ri""*'".J"i'""iion the false^{allegations g.r;ingil" pr"pertytransaction over the agricultural land} in an extent^{of Ac. 1-00 g"it; l"'slNos' 476' .477and 478 of Pochampally} village and^{Mandal,Y,i'atiar';"iagrriDistrict without following the due} violative^{of Articles 14' 21} Drocess^{of law, is irrug"r,} "t]i"'f 'nJ'inttitutional from berng^{violative of principles of} bnd 300-^{A of the Con,tit'iio"-oitnoi'} 'p"t

¶20

natural justice and consequen y direct the Respondent N the personal life and liberty of the petitioners or the o. 3 not to interfere with civil disputes between Respondent No. 4 and the petitioners_

¶21

IA NO: 10F 2024

¶22

Peiltion under Seclt-o1-,1!J.,CpC p.raying that in the cir(;umstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the p"iit,o'", iri"'irrgh court rnay be preased to direct the Respondent No..3 not t" i.t".r!r" i.iJ tn" p"rronrr life and riberty of lhe petitioners and/or civir disputes o"i*""" ti,""pl,,,onu^ and the Respondent No.4 in respect of the tand,in rn "it"ni Jnf. i oo guntas_irr in Sv rui,s. +zo, 477 and 478 of pochamo_alty vittage'J;;"M];rt, yadadri_ Bhuvanagiri District, pending disposal of the main writ p-etition.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI pApAlAH PEDDAKULA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: ASST. cp FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - - - _

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B' VIJAYSEN REDDY} WRIT PETITIO^{N No.2946L oF2024}

¶28

ORDER:(ORAL)

¶29

This writ^{petition is filed by the petitioners seekingto declare} the action^{of respondent No'3 - the Station House Officer'Bachupally} Police^{Station, in interferingwith their personal life and liberty in} connection^{with F'I'RNo'1031 of 2024 dated 19'10'2024 registeredwith} Bachupally^{Police Statioru(or the offences punishable underSections 406'} 420 and'506^{read with liection34 of the IndianPenal Code (IPC)' as being} illegal, arbirrary^{ancl unconstitutiona['}

¶30

2 Leamed^{counselfor the petitioners submittedthat the all the} offences^{mentionedirr F'I'R' No 1031 of 2024dated19'102024 are} punishable^{with the maxirnum term uptoseven (7) years imprisonment} and the^{resPondent Policeare bound to complywith the procedure} contemplated^{under Section 41A Cr'P'C' and the guidelinesissued by the} Hon ble^{SupremeCourt in Arnesh Kumar v' Stateof Biharl'}

¶31

I {

¶32

Learned^{AssistantGovernmentPleaderfor Home submittedthat} the procedure^{contemplated'under Section 41A Cr'P'C' and guidelines}

1 (2014) 8 scc 273

i i.' .

issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar will be scrupulously followed.

¶37

As limited relief is sought for by the petitioners, and as all the offences mentioned in F.I.R. No.1031 of 2024 dated 19.10.2024 are punishable with the maximum term upto seven (Z) years Lnprisonment, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3/ Investigating Officer (IO) to comply with the procedure contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued by the Hon,ble Supr,rme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

¶38

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if an1,, pending in

¶39

this writ petition, stand closed.

¶40