Disposed

Thota Kumaraswamy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2024WP/35875/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A complainant in Crime No.679/2024 complained that respondent police were repeatedly summoning and confining him under pressure to compromise with respondent 3. Court held police have no authority to summon a complainant except for investigation or recording his statement, and directed issuance of notices specifying time and date.

What did the court decide?

Respondents-police directed to issue notice to petitioner specifying time and date whenever his presence is required for investigation in Crime No.679/2024; miscellaneous petitions closed, no costs.

Thota Kumaraswamy Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e5 ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35875 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thota Kumaraswamy, S/o. Nagamallu, Aged about 54^years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No. 302, Royal Oaks Building, Ganga Enclave,^{Pet Basheerabad,} Qutubullapur, Telangana-500055.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Operation^Team Police, Office at Chennapuram X Road, Jawaharnagar,^{MalkajgiriDivision.}

¶13

Bhashapaka Somaiah @ Somanna, S/o. Bhashapaka^{llaiah, Aged46 years,} Occ. Gangster, Rl/o. Plot No.^'1, Anandnagar,^{Balamrai, NearCheck Post-} Cantonment Area, Secunderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ther,ewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in^calling the^{petitionerto his police} station on daily basis on the instigation of the respondent 3^{and threateninghim} to involve him in criminal cases and making him to sit in^{his police stationby} giving criminal colour to the words of respondent No. 3 which is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution of^{lndia besidesin} violation of natural^justice, consequently direct the respondent^{2 not to arrest the} petltioner by calling him to his Police Station without following due^process of law, in the interest of^justice.

IA NO 10F 2024

petition under Ser 1Sl CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fifeA ln sLc ;;:,^{:rx*t : :i ::f r;;fu1[#il!#ff;: lrx":} ,r" process of raw, in the interest of justice pendins disposar "r,r#j,t;I;;:

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: M/s. NASEEM ARA

¶21

Counsel for the Rbspondent No.l & 2: Gp FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the foflowing: ORDER

n lrl r-n

,z^e', r..)

THE HON 'BLE SRI JUs TIC EC .v.BHA REDDY TION NO.35 a7s OF 2o24

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the

¶29

follor.r,ing relief:

¶30

*0.;J!ili,,.r",[:,:{,I::,i;^1,;:;,;:1,,i:,r,o,x-!:;::r,,:;:; j:,tVn,:::n:iiV";;y,;i;i7:l:i;:,ii!l:;:;:;,,:,1 ":.:!*i:i ###.fr #!Si{i|;,;#i!{f ::;:,{,i,!^{j!;:#i,i:i j,i} 2 It is stated that the petitioner is Ex_maoist and surrendered to the then police officials in the year, 2006. It is srated that respondent No.3, who belongs to t he follower of gangster Nayeem (Bhongir Nayeem), who rnvolved in various cases, approached the petitioner in the year, 2O2O regardi ng certain cases, for which he introduced respondent No.3 with the concerned Advocate t<r contest the said cases artd respondent No.3 paid huge amount towards fee to the counsel on record and the said cases are pending for adjudication. It is further submitted that since lasr year, respondent No.3 is continuously threatening the petitioner with dire consequences to get return the amount which he paid to the counsel on record in d ifferent cases. Jt is further shted thar the petitioner was constrained to lodge a complaint against

¶31

I .l

¶32

CVBR,J wP _35A75_2024

¶33

¶34

respondent No.3 and the said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.679 /2024 dated O9.11.2024 for the alleged offences under Sectiorrs 329(4), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSSI. It is further stated that respondent Nos. I and 2 instead of conducting enquiry and investigation into the complaint registered against respondent No.3, at the instance of respondent No.3, under the guise of investigation, frequently summoning the petitioner and confining him for hours together in the police st.rtion and forcing him to enter into a compromise with respondent No.3.

¶35

Considcred the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed o[ at the admission stage.

¶36

l,earned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents submitted that acting on the complaint submitted by the petitioner, F.l.R. has been registered against respondent No.3 and only for the purpose of investigation, the petitioner was summoned to the police station. It is further submitted that the police are not insisting the petitioner to enter into any settlcment or to dictate in terms of respondent No.3.

¶37

5.^' Admittcdl_v-, the petitioner is complainant in Crime No.679 of 2024 dated 09.11.2024 and the petitioner has to be summoned

¶38

CVBR,] wP 35875 2024

¶39

¶40

only for the^purpose of investigation or for recording^{of his} statement. Further, the respondents-police are not having^any power or authority to summon the petitioner, who is the complainant and^{said action on the part of the policeamountsto} harassing the complainant^{rather taking away the rights of the} complainant to agitate^{his grievances before the concernedpolice} for a proper investigation.

¶41

Keeping in view of the various^{guidelines issued} by^the Hon'ble Supreme Court,^{this Court is of the viewthat the endsof} justice would be met, if the respondents-police are directed to issue notice to the^petitioner, if his^{presenceis requiredfor the} purpose of investigation in Crime No.679^{of2024 dated} 09.11.2024, duly^{specifyingtime and date to enable the petitioner} to make it convenient to appear^{before the police to cooperatewith} the investigation.

¶42

With the above said observations, the writ^petitionis disposed of.

¶43

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any^pending in^{this writ petition}

¶44

shall stand closed.^{No costs.}

¶45

SD/-^V.HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT^RE GISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE^COPY// SE NON^OFFICER

¶47

to'',. ,n" Principal secretary' Home Department' Telangana.

¶48

Secretariat,^{HYderabad' State of}

¶49

lf,xilir;#aiq$qTn^'fi^{:+'i-i,#h*:'1,,;",ffi} : BSR PSK {,

l : 11

ll t

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 20t1212024

ORDER

WP.No.35875 of 2024

1 H E S T4
4'
( o^
oo
051, 2tl25
c
t
l'O
F,ATrl H

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

¶61

Thota Kumaraswamy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Kumaraswamy 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

Akula Laxmi, Vs The State of Telangana

Pattabhirami Reddy Vs State of Telangana and 3others

Mohammed Abdul Rahman Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri. Sanem Indrasena Goud Vs State of Telangana

Sri.Batchu Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Standard Reagents Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana