Allowed

Gade Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Mar 2024WP/6310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a private employee challenging summons from the police station as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of fundamental rights. The Court directed the police not to take coercive steps or summon the petitioner for investigation without following due process, while declining to call upon the petitioner to submit affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent No.3 not to summon or take any coercive steps against the petitioner and to follow due process if presence is required for investigation.

Gade Praveen Kumar Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6310 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gade Praveen Kumar, S/o Devadas, Age.35^years, Occ. Pvt. Employee R/o. Plot No. 6/'102, Ground Floor, Gandhar Sahar Estates, Mansoorabad, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. Telangana 500068

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam Police Commissionerate, Godavarikhani,

¶13

3 The Station House Officer, Mandamarri Police Station,^tVlancherial District.

¶14

4 Battula Vinodha, W/o. Jakab. Age. 52^years, Occ. House Maker,^Rl/o. Street No. 08, P.S. Colony, Ramanthapur, t/edchal-Malkajgin, Telangana^-500013-

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriale Writ, Order or Direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of [Vlandamus to declaring the^{action of the RespondentNo.3} herein in calling and harassing^petitioner by insisting^{Petitioner personal} appearance at Police Station as being^{illegal, arbitrary,discriminatoryand} violative of Articles.'14 and 21 of the Constitution of^{lndia andConsequentlally} direct the Respondent No. 3 herein to^{not harassthe Petitionerand follow due} process of law.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petitron, the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the Respondent No.3 herein to^{not to call petitioner and harass petitioner} further direct the Respondent No.3 herein to^{follow due process of law}

¶19

i l I l i I

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 herein to consider petitioner speed post and email representations dt. 06.03.2024.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. RAHUL

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

SHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.63lO of 2024

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶29

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in calling and harassing petitioner by insisting petitioner personal appearance at police station as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles I 4 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct respondent No.3 herein not to harass the petitioner and follow due process of law..."

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a private employee and resided in the house of respondent No.4 for some period as paying guest arrd during the period there are money transaction s between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and taking advantage of the said transactions, respondent No.4 is hling false complaints against the petitioner and acting on one of such complaints a case in Crime No.10 of 2024, dated O2.O1.2O24 was

¶31

r---V*EFH

¶32

¶33

CVBR, J \rp 63 l0 2024

¶34

registered by the Uppal Police for the alleged olfence under Section 420 of I.P.C. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is frequently lodging complaints before different police stations on the sarne set of allegations. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.4 has now approached respondent No.3 and filed a complaint and to act on the said complaint and to enquire into the same set of allegations which are subject matter of Crime No.1O of 2024, respondent No.3 is frequently summoning him to the police station and confining him for hours together.

¶35

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.4 had lodged a written complaint against the petitioner and as the said complaint revea-led commission of cognizable offence a case in Crime No.1O of 2024 was registered and aJter registration of the crime a notice as required under Section 4l_A of Cr.p.C. was also issued to the petitioner in the said Crime.

¶36

¶37

CVBR, J Wp 6.1 l0 2024

¶38

In view of the above submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.3 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner nor summoning him to the police station on one pretext or the other and if the presence of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation in any case, respondent No.3 is directed to follow due process of law.

¶39

With the above observations, the Writ^petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶40

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, sha1l stand closed.

¶41

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

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{Secretary, Department of Home' The State of Telangana'}

¶46

2 ?f;8'3'SllXllS',"t""i?378",,,^{RamasundamPorice commissionerate'} J ffS113[i5lil]use^{officer'MandamarrrPo.lic€station' Mancherial District'} 4 sta te^{or r eI a n} s^{a n a roU rr} 5 g: ::.("dStl S6. lg'"1 ry;f; t J$I i"? l. " C) Two CD^CoPies BN GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210312024

ORDER

WP.No.6310 of 2024

1 HE STAI e
/t( I
Jou 2 3 APn ?024 zt,
t
r rr:t"
'fi-

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS psc) gg.-6it*

Gade Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gade Praveen Kumar 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

Maheshwari Vs Sowmya Kumari

Kaveri Travels Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. K. Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad yousuf khan Vs The Commissioner of Police

Velagapudi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Katakam Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana