Disposed

Amboji Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Oct 2024WP/29498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Special Original Jurisdiction, deleted Respondents 6 and 7 (Vigilance Officers) from the party array as they acted in official capacity. The Court directed the Investigating Officer to follow Section 35(3) BNS 2023 and Arnesh Kumar guidelines regarding arrest procedures for offences punishable under less than seven years. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Investigation Officer directed to comply with Section 35(3) BNS 2023 and Arnesh Kumar guidelines; Respondents 6 and 7 deleted from array; petition dismissed without costs.

Amboji Srikanth Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³¹

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29498 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Arnboji Srikanth, S/o. Late Yadaiah, Age 35 years, Occ Business H.No.2-105, Raaviraala Village, Thukkugucla I/unicipality, lVlaheshwaram N4andal, Rangareddy District 50'1 5 1 0

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep- by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana, Secretarial Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Director General of Police, for the State of Telangana, DGP Office, Lakd ikapool,Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, Vayupuri Colony, Neredmet,Secunderabad 500 056.

¶15

4 The Circle lnspector of Police, PS Adibatla, Rachakonda. The Sub-lnspector of police PS Adibatla, Rachakonda.

¶16

6 S. Raghavendar Reddy, Circle lnspector of Police, PS Adibatla, Rachakonda.

¶17

7 S. Venkatesh, Sub-lnspector of Police, PS Adibatla, Rachakonda.

¶18

:..RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of firlandamus declaring the action of Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 in their official capacity as Respondents Nos.4 and 5 who are calling the petitioner to the,. police station without registering any crime and without any accusation and making petitioner wait at the Police station endlessly for days together as illegal, arbitrary and against the^{guidelines prescribed} by this Honourable court and violative of Article 14,20,21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to desist from calling the petitioner to police station and interfere with my personal liberty

¶20

fA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

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 Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 in their official capacity as Respondent No. 4 and 5 forthwith produce General Diary of the Adibatla Police Station relates to the dates 06110l2O24 and 0711012024 and also desist from calling the petitioner to the Police Station pending disposal of the writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. RAMESH KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5: SRI ANIKETH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6&7: -

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

¶27

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶28

WIIIT PETITI ON No.29498 OF 2024

¶29

ORDER: (ORAI-)

¶30

The only allegation made against respondent Nos.6 and 7 is that they have abused their official position.

¶31

Mr. Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Govemment pleader for Home, submitted that respondent Nos.6 and 7 cannot be made as parties in their personal capacity.

¶32

Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.6 and 7 are

¶33

interfering with his personal liberty. The allegations made in the affidavit are related to discharge ofduties by respondent Nos.6 and 7 in their official capacity as respondent Nos.4 and 5. Hence, impleading respondent Nos.6 and 7 in their personal capacity is unwarranted. Therefore, respondent Nos.6 and 7 shall be deleted from the array of the parties.

¶34

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are calling him to the police Station without registering any crime against him and without any accusation, and making him to wait at the police Station endlessly for days together as illegal, arbitrary ard against the guidelines of this

¶35

Page 2 ofl

¶36

BVR..t wl' 29498 ?02.1

¶37

Court and also Arlicles 14, 20 and 2 I of the Constitution of Indial and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to desist from calling him to the Police Station.

¶38

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, based on the written instructions d,ated 23.10.2024 issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Adilbatla Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, submitted that Municipal Commissioner, Thukkuguda, lodged a complaint on 05.10.2024 with respondent No.4 - the Station House Of-ficer, Adibatla Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate stating that one Amboj i Ramesh (brother of the petitioner) caused trouble by placing a stone into the water supply bore and when no one was present and on 05.10.2024, he demolished the public water plant room and machine; based on the complaint, F.l.R. No.598 of 2024 dated 05.10.2024 was registered against the brother of the petitioner and investigation was taken up. The Investigation Officer visited the scene of offence, examined the same and recorded statements of the witnesses. LWs.2 and 3 stated that brother of the petitioner along with the petitioner committed the offlence, as such, the Investigation Officer called the petitioner to the

¶39

Pagr J ofJ

¶40

B\ tt..I \P 191q8 20lJ

¶41

Police Station.^{However, instead of approachingthe PoliceStation'} the petitioner filed^{the presentwrit petition makingfalseallegations.}

¶42

As it is submitted^{that F.I.R.No'598 of 2024 was registered} againstthepetitionerfortheoffencespunishableunderSections329(3) and 324(4) of^{BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita 2023 arrd Section4 of the} Prevention of^{Damageto Public PropertyAct 1984 which are} punishable with imprisonment^{for a term of less than seven (7) years'} the Investigation Officer^{is directed to comply with the procedure} contemplated^{under Section 35(3) of BharatiyaNagarikSuraksha} Sanhita 2023^{(Section 4l-A of Cr.P'C.) and also the guidelines of the} Hon'ble Supreme^{Court in Arnesh Kumarv' Stateof Biharr during} investigation of^{the crime. The Registry is directed to delete} respondent Nos.^{6 and 7 from the array of respondents'}

¶43

T.Withtheabovedirectionsandobservations,thewritpetition

¶44

is disposed of, at^{the admissionstage itself' No orderas to costs'}

¶45

As a sequel thereto,^{miscellaneous applications, if any'pending}

¶46

in the writ Petition^{stand closed.}

¶47

(2014) B SCC 273 SD/. T. TIRUMALA ASSISTANT^REGIST R //TRUE COPY// SECTION ICER \ To, 1 . The Prrncioal Secretary,^{Home Department, Telangana' Secretariat} Buildings.T.S.,HYderabad.

¶48

2 The Director General of Police,^{forthe State of Telangana, DGP Office,} Lakdikaoool.Hvderabad. 3 ir," Co,ii',i.r't ner of Poltce,^{Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, Vayupuri} Colonv.Neredmet.Secunderabad^{500 056} 4 Tne Ciicle lnsoector of^{Pohce, PS AdibatlaRachakonda} 5 The sub-lnsodctor of oolice PS^{Adibatla, Rachakonda.} \ 6 one cc to SRt. v. RavEstl^{KUMAR. Advocate} [OPUC] i;; dcdL-ci ron^nour ,High^{CourtfortheState oiTelanganaal Hvderabad[OUTI} I7 Two CD Copies BM GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2311012024

ORDER

ir l),
J
.Z
C)
I
-l
<br>

¶55

WP.No.29498 of 2024