Disposed

S. Sunny Edward v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jan 2024WP/727/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged police summonings without crime registration to delete protest videos, alleging harassment by municipal representatives. The Court directed police to issue Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notices before questioning petitioners for investigation.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the Police (Respondents 3 to 7) to issue notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines if petitioner presence is needed for investigation.

S. Sunny Edward Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REODY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 727 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 S. Sunny.Edward, S/o. S-P.Dayalalq, Age- 53 years, Occ- Working as press reporter,Jvlaste, Kgy ry Ch.arile], Mush-eerabab, R/o.Ftat wo.f of] t;fth;i I owers, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

2 Smt. Tallari Bhaovawathi W/o. Lat'e S.P. Dayanand, Age- 7g years, Occ_ 3gL1. ,Iq':il_g_^gqfld .R/o^{3-o-zls, ndaisr,X"gIi,"bi,lruo zi. karimnagJ,} Munrclpal corporation' Karimnagar'

¶10

...pETrroNERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderhbad.

¶13

The Commissioner Police, karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 JE_91_"F-^tnspector of potice,-il Town Fotice StJtion, Karimnagar, Kaflmnagar utstnct.

¶14

4- The Assistant sub-lnspector of porice, Ir rown porice station, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶15

Mr. Srinivas, S/o.Not known to the petitioners, Age Major, Occ_ Workinq as Constable at lll Town^police Station, Karimnagar, karimn'agbiDistriit.^"'"

¶16

Mr.^Nimma Venu, S/o.Nolknown to the petitio"neis, nge_ ni'ajoi Occ_ Working as constable at rrr rown.^porice station, karimnagar, (arimn6gir Ditrrci.^"'

¶17

Mr.€asheer Ati, S/o Not known to the petitioneri, Age_ [/iJ';, O-cc_ WLrking as A.S.l. of Police at lll.Town^police Staiion,.Karimnalar, fa'rlmnagar Oiititt

¶18

I Aplrg Kiran Mayee, Wo. Arsha Mallesham, Age_ 5g"vdars, O"c_"Corooiaio, of Division No.23, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Rfti AOarsh^'Nigar Karimnagar, Karminagar Distiict.

¶19

Arsha Mallesham, S/o. Not Known to the petitioners, Age_ 63 years, Occ_ Ex_ Corporator, Karimnagar . Municipal Cirrporation,' ftlo daaisn^- f.f agar, Karimnagar, Karminagar District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circurnstances 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 rrf Mandamus, declaring questioning the arbitrary action of the respondent /police in calling the petitioner to the Police station through cell phones of respcndent No.5 to 7, without registering any crime against the petitioner at the instance of the respondent no,8 aM 9 in connection with the highhandedly laying

¶22

¶23

road in-front of the house of the petitioner i.e., H.No.3-6-2i5, Adarsh Nagar, Div No.23, Karimnagar t/unicipar corporatron, Karimnagar, due to the increased road level, entire rain water frow into the house of the petitioner, the said raying of ro.rd picture is uproaded by myserf in the whatsApp i.e., 23 Division Group of Karinrnnagar Municipar corporation, the corporator of the said division is gth respondent and gth respondent is ex-corporator and husband of gth respondent, are r.rstng political power over the respondent police and harassing the petitioners by calling them to the police station under the guise of Circle lnspector lnstructions by the sub-ordinate at the instance of Respondent No.B and 9, is illegal, void and opposed to articles 14, 19, 21 and 300_ A of conslitution of rndia and consequenfly direct the respondent porice not to interfere with life and riberty of the petitioners without folowing due process of law

¶24

IANO:1OF2 024

¶25

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the': affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direcl the respondent/porice not to cafl the petitioners to the porice station without registering any crime against the petitioners herein at the instance of the respondent No.8 and g, pending disposal of the above Writ petition

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. MUMMANENI SR|NIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: Gp FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to9: None Appeared

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶32

w RIT PETITION NO.727 OF 2024

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The case of the^{petitioners is that they are the residents of} house bearing H.No.3-6-215,^{Adarsh Nagar,Div'No'23,} Karimnagar Municipal^{Corporation,Karimnagar.In front of} their house, Iaying of^{road with increased level has been taken} up by the Municipal^{Corporation, which iscausing} inconvenience to^{ingress and aggress to the petitioners'house'} The grievance^{of the petitionersis that, at the instanceof the} eighth and ninth^{respondents, respondents 3 to 7 are frequently} summoning the^{petitioners and conirning hours togetherand} forcing the petitioners^{todelete the uploaded videoson} WhatsApp group.^{The specific case of the petitioners is that the} seventh respondent^{called thepetitioner uidemobile} No.9441 13727^{|on 06.01.2024at 6.42 -pm and threatened the} petitioners directing^{them to delete the uploaded videos on} WhatsApp^grouP.

¶35

Learned counsel^{for the writ petitionershas submitted} that without having^{any power or authority and even without} registering any^{case or following the procedurestipulated under} !l* Section 41-A^{of the Code of CriminalProcedure (Cr'P'C')or the}

guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biharr, the respondents 3 to 7 are summoning the petitioners to the Police Station and forcing them to delete the videos relating to the works undertaken by the respondents 8 and 9. Hence, the respondents are liable for disciplinary action and payment of compensation for illegal conlinement of the petitioners.

¶40

Learned Government Pleader for Home submits that acting on the complaint submitted by the respondents 8 and 9, only for the purpose of investigation, the respondents have called the petitioners on mobile number and if any complaint is received, they would follow the law prescribed under Section 41A Cr.P.C. or the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (l supra).

¶41

In view of the said submissions, this Court, deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the respondents 3 to 7 to issue notices under Section 4l-A Cr.P.C. and to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (l supra), if the petitioners' presence is required for the purpose of investigation in any of the cases.

rl2ol4l a scc 273

.//

With the above observations,^{the Writ Petition is disposed}

¶47

¶48

There shall be no^{order as to costs.Miscelianeous}

¶49

applications, il^{any, pendingshall standclosed'}

¶50

SD/.N. CHANDRA SEKHA o ASSISTANT TRAR

/TTRUE COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

To,

'l. The Princioal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat,^{T'S',Hyderabad'}

¶55

i. fn" corniissioner^{Pofice,Karimnigar,Karimnagar District'} 5. iii; ailb^{lnspector of Police, lll Town PoliceStation, Karimnagar'}

¶56

Karimnagar District.

¶57

a. f6e Asiistant^{Sub-lnspector of Police, lll TownPo{iceStation,Karimnagar,} Karimnagar District.

¶58

s rwo CCd[o bp ron^HoME ,High^{Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶59

1. iji;-cCi; Snr.^{il,turr,triltnruENlsRlNlvASA RAo, Advocate[oPUC]}

¶60

Two CD CoPies

BM BS

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:091O112024

ORDER

1 6e STATE Oa
9
,q
J o
,),
11 J[\ ?t2<br>oo
a_'
+.
c
T DEs.PiIi::' ,:+

¶67

WP.No.727 ot 2024

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

o
<br>L 1,D>-4

S. Sunny Edward v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Sunny Edward 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

Navulla Malla Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sai Charan Amberkar Vs The State of Telangana

Suchith Kondadasula, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. T. Seetamma Vs State of Telangana

Pithani Subramanyam Vs The State of Telangana

Ch. Sattaiah, Vs The State of Telangana