Dismissed

Bujagundla Shiva Raj v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Mar 2024WP/6706/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ challenge against daily police summoning of petitioners without complaint. Court directed police not to summon petitioners without following due process of law, leaving investigation actions subject to legal procedural compliance.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 3 directed not to summon petitioners to police station without following due process of law; presence required for investigation demands legal compliance.

Bujagundla Shiva Raj Vs The State Of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.^BHASKARREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6706 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bujagundla Shiva Raj, S/o. Raju, Aged about^{30 Years,Occ.Driver, Fi/o. H.} No-. 3-4-494, Enugulagadda, Hanumakonda,^{HanumakondaDistrict.}

¶9

BujagundlaRaju, S/o. Sammaiah, Aged about 60 Years,^{Occ. Agriculture,R/o.} H.No. 3-4-494Enugulagadda, Hanumakonda,^{HanumakondaDistrict.}

¶10

BujagundlaSwarupi, Wo. BulagundlaRaju^{Aged about55 YearsOcc.} Housewife Rl/o. H.No.3-4-494 Enugulagadda, Hanumakonda,^Hanumakonda District

¶11

...PET,,.NERS

¶12

AND

¶13

'1 . The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioneiof Police, Warangal Commissionerate,^Warangal, Warangal District.

¶15

The St,tion House Officer, Hanumakonda P.S.^{Hanumakonda, Hanumakonda} District.

¶16

Sriramoju Anusha, W/o. Not Known Aged about^{not known, Occ.Owner of the} Car R:/o. HNo.2-7-77, Excise Colony, Subedari Hanumakonda^District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directbn more^particulady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the^{3rd respondentherein} calling the petitioners daily to the^police station^{is illegal arbitrary,unconstitutional,} violation of the fundamental right^guaranteed under the Constitution^{of lndia and} without^jurisdiction and consequently direct the 3rd^{respondents not to call the} petitioners daily to the 3rd respondent police station.

¶19

¶20

1A NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 1 51 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 3rd respondent not to call the petitioners to his police station daily, forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. V.MANJULA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶23

The Court made the foltowing: ORDER

¶24

i I

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

WRM PETITION No.67MOF2024

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶30

"......fo issue an appropiate utrit, ord.er or direction more partialarly one in the nahre of Wit of Mandamus d.eclaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein catting tle petitioners doilg to the police statlon rb illegal, arbitrary, unanstitutional, uiolation of the fund.amental rigfu guaranteed. und.er the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and anseqtentlg direct the 3rd respond-ents not to ca the petttioners daitg to the 3rd respondent police station ......"

¶31

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is eking out his livelihood by working as driver for the vehicle of respondent No.4. It is the further case of the petitioners that at the instigation of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 is frequently summoning them to the police station on one pretext or the other and conJining them for

¶32

¶33

hours together in the police station.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondents-police are not having any power or authoritSr to confine the petitioners in the police station without following due Process^{of law.}

¶35

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, on instructions, would submit that the

¶37

¶38

respondents-police have not received any complaint against the petitioners and if any complaint is filed against the petitioners and il it reveals commission of cognizable offences, respondent No.4 will take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶39

In view of the said submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition direcring respondent No.3 not to summon the petitioners to the police statiory without following due process of law and if the presence of the petitioners is required for the purpose of investigation in any case, the respondents-police are directed to follow due process of law.

¶40

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶42

shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/. P. PADMANABHA RED ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State Of Telangana.

¶48

2 The Commissioner of Police, Warangal Commissionerate, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶49

2 The Station House Officer, Hanumakonda p.S. Hanumakonda Hanumakonda District.

¶50

4c One CC to tv'l/s. V.MANJULA, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6 Two CD Copies PSK.

KKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410312024

ORDER

WP.No.6706 of 2024

,/ €
fa dH,[ SfAt
r.)
_) 0 7 l,lAY zul c):t
l
+

aFS pAT Ctl 9o

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

Bujagundla Shiva Raj v. The State Of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bujagundla Shiva Raj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Akbar Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Dinesh Kachhwa Vs The State of Telangana

Pindi Suresh Vs The State of Telangana

Puli Ramanujamma Vs The State of Telangana

Bonala Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

Ch. Dharma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana