Disposed

Chittumulla Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Mar 2024WP/5882/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to declare arbitrary police actions of summoning the petitioner and pressuring him to settle a civil dispute without registration of a case or notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C. as illegal.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents Nos. 3 and 4 not to harass or force the petitioner to settle with Respondent No. 5 without due process; direction to follow Section 41A Cr.P.C. for investigation.

Chittumulla Srinivas Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5882 OF 2024

¶7

Eetween:

¶8

Chittumulla Srinivas, S/o Badraiah aged about 58 years, Occ. Business resident of H.No.6-5-210 Gandhi Road Karimnagar Town and District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District

¶13

3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, (EOW) Office of the Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Distriat.^'

¶14

4 The Station House Officer, ll Town Police Station Karimnagar. Karimnagar District

¶15

5 Dr. S. V. Ramachandra Murthy, S/o Pichaiah aged 55 years, Occupation. Urologist Resident of D.No.6-5-60 to 6-5-67 Sai Hospital, SFK Tbwers, Besides Dr. Bhoomareddy Hospitals Doctor Street. Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitulion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent police in calling the petitioner to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, without registering any case against the petitioner in any Police S{ation and without issuing any notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. and pressurizing the petitioner to settle the civil disput€ with the sth respondent without demanding payment of any lease amount due from the sth respondent as arbitrary, illegal and against to the

¶18

provisions of the Constituti, po,ice nor ro inrerrere _,, il"":J';;.il: ilTfl[ il:"::.Tr::'J"#,"# petitioner without due process of law.

¶19

IANo!10F 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent porice not to interfere with the civir dispute and with the rife and liberty of the petitioner without due process of law.

¶21

Counset for the petitioner : SRI M.RAM MOHAN REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : Gp FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 :

¶24

The Court made the foltowing: ORDER

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO.5882OF 2024

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶30

"......to ISsue a u.trit, order or direction more partianlarlg one in the nature of Wit of Mand.amus d.eclaing the action of the 3rd respondent police in calling the petitioner to the offi.ce of tlrc Assrbfant Commbsioner of Police uitlaut registering ang case against the petitioner in ang Police Station and uLitLaut issuing ang notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C and pressurbing the petitioner to settle tl'Le ciuil d.ispute uitLt the Sth respondent uithnut demanding pagment of ang lease amount due from th.e Sth respond.ent as arbitrary, illegal and again-st to the provbions of tle Constitution of India and consequently direct the respond.ent police not to interfere uith the ciuil dispute and with the life and libertg of the petitioner uithout due proess of \ana......"

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that disputes arose between him and respondent No.5 regarding realization of lease amounts and when he demanded to pay the amounts, respondent No.5 threatened him with dire consequences, which conskained him to lodge a complaint, dated 26.07.2022 before respondent No.3 against respondent No.5. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instigation of respondent No.5, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are frequently surunoning him to the police station and forcing him

¶32

¶33

to enter into settlement with respondent No.5 as per the terms dictated by him.

¶34

J Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that instead of taking cognizance of the complaint submitted by the petitioner, the respondents-police are forcing the petitioner to enter into a settlement with respondent No.5 and also threatening the petitioner that they will foist false cases against him under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if he fails to enter into a settlement with respondent No.5.

¶35

4 In view of the above submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to harass the petitioner and not to force the petitioner to enter into a settlement with respondent No.5, without following the due process of law and if the presence of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation in any case, the respondents-police are directed to follow the procedure

¶36

contemplated under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., and also the

¶37

¶38

¶39

guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ARNESH

¶40

KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHARI.

¶41

5 With the above observations, this writ petition 1S

¶42

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶44

pending shall stand closed.

¶45

SD/-P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT GI

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTro OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary Home Depa(ment Telangana Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶50

2 The Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District J The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing,^(EOW) Office of the Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶51

4 The Station House Officer, ll Town Police Station Karimnagar. Karimnagar District

¶52

5 One CC to SRI M.RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate. {OPUCI 6 Two CCs to GP FOR l-lOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

7 Two CD Copies.

'zor+(g)^{scc zz:}

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510312024

ORDER

\18, S-l'A t €
t
o(
?
(-) 0 2 nP,, 7Vt C
"i h
* t
oFspalc

¶63

WP.No.5882 ot 2O24

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

z'{r'1

Chittumulla Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chittumulla Srinivas 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

Ch. Vinay Vs The State of Telangana

Kalinga Krishna Chathan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Hameed Vs The State of Telangana

U. Vimal Babu Vs State of Telangana

Dinesh Sharma Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Waheed (Since died) Vs The State of Telangana