Disposed

Kanukala Pallavi v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jan 2024WP/852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and a section 151 petition filed by two individuals against the police for summoning them daily without registering a case. The Court directed the station house officer to follow due procedure under the CrPC if petitioner presence is required for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Station House Officer to follow due procedure under CrPC if petitioners' presence is required for investigation.

Kanukala Pallavi Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 852 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kanukala Pallavi, D/o. Mallareddy^{Kanukala, Aged- 34 years, Occ- Business,} R/o.H.No.12-229, Adarsn^Nagar,- Opp^{IDPL Colony, Balanagar, Rangareddy} District.

¶9

Poloju Sanjay, S/o Ashok,^{Aged-36 years, Occ- Business,Rl/o H.i"lo' 56-100'} Vajp'ay Nagai, Quthbullapur,-Rangar-eddy^{ChintalHmt Township, Tirumalagiri,} Hyderabad.

¶10

.....PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF TELANGANA,^{Rep.by its Principal Secretary,Home} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,^{WarangalDistrict,Warangal'}

¶14

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,^{P.S. l\4attewada'Warangal'}

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of^{lhe constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the natureof} writ of Mandamus declaring^{the action of the Respondents more particularly} Respondent No.3 in calling the^{Petitionersdaily to Mattewada Police station,} Warangal without following due^{process of Law, as arbitrary, illegal and} u nco nstitutional and consequently^{directthe RespondentNo.3 not to harass the} Petitioners in any manner and^not to^{insist them to regularly come to the} Mattewada Police Station, Warangal^{without following due process of law'}

¶17

l.A.NO:1 oF 2024

¶18

Petition Under section 151 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 Respondent No.3 not to insist the petitioners to regurarry come to the Mattewada Porice station' warangar without forowing due process of raw pending disposal of the/above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the^petitioners : SRI A.DATTANAND

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the foltowing ORDER

¶22

I \

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

WRIT P ETITIO N No.8 52 oF2o24

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ^petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief:

¶28

"... to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No.3 in calling the petitioners daily to Mattewada police Station, Warangal without following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal and u nconstitutiona I and consequently direct the respondent No 3 not to harass the petitioners in any manner and not to insist them to regularly come to the Mattewada^police Station, Warangal w'itnoui following due process of law and to pass such other order or orders. . . "

¶29

Heard.^perused the record.

¶30

3 The case oF the petitioners is that the respondent_police, \ without registering any case, are frequently summoning the \ petitioners to police station and conFining hou rs together. Further, the respondent-police are also not furnishing any information with regard to involvement of the petitioners in any criminal case.

¶31

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing for the respondent-police submitted that the present Writ petition

¶32

¶33

I i t

¶34

is filed only on apprehension. As and when the presence of the petitioners is required in any criminal case, the respondent-police would follow the due procedure prescribed under law.

¶35

In view of the said submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it the presence of the petitioners is required for the purpose of investigation in any criminal case.

¶36

With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/. T.JAYASBEE assrsr'a1ri'n-io$iitan I //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

to 'r. ,n" Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat' State of Telangana at Hvderabad.

¶40

,. ii',;'i";;dioner^{of Police, warangal District'warangal'} ;: iil; 5t"iid-Hortl^{otti""r' P.s Mattewada'wanangal-}

¶41

;: i;;LE; to'cdio,^{Ho.e,Higr' Court for the State of Telangana at}

¶42

Hvderabad. [OUTI

¶43

s. ij?r;-bC t"^{dri A.dattanand, Advocate[oPUc]}

¶44

Two CD^CoPies

SAGJ W

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010112024

ORDER

WP.No.852 of 2024

ir
a
,(}
ta
a
c
..
o

H
,

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶53

1# tr-

Kanukala Pallavi v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanukala Pallavi 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

Kotagiri Shailaja Vs the State of Telangana

Jagillapuram Bharat Vs State of Telangana

T.Narender Vs State of Telangana

Dudekula Chand Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Aamer Abdul Rahman Vs The State of Telangana

Bandaru Rajender Vs The State of Telangana