Disposed

Mekala Harshavardhan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jan 2024WP/999/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family members accused under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act alleged harassment by police during investigation at the behest of the complainant wife. The court directed police not to interfere with the matrimonial dispute and to issue notices specifying date and time when summoning them, disposing of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Police directed not to interfere with the matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 and to issue notices specifying date and time when summoning petitioners for investigation.

Mekala Harshavardhan Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION O: 999 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mekala Harshavardhan, S/o.Mekala^{Bikshapathi,Age 34 years' Occ: Pvt.} Employee, Rl/o.'1440, Ramachandrapuram,^{Bhongir Mandal,Chandupatla,} Nalgonda District^(A-1 )

¶11

Mekala Ramulamma, W/o.^{Mekala Bixapathi,Age 68 years' Occ. Housewife.} Rl/o.1440, Ramachandrapuram,^{Bhongir Mandal, Chandupatla'Nalgonda} District^(A-2).

¶12

Mantri Neeraja, Wo. Uppalaiah,^{Age 43 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. Chada} Village, Kateaalli Mandal, Nalgonda^{District (A-4)}

¶13

Vadapally Sailaia, Wo. Vadapally^{Naveen Kumar, Age 45 years' Occ'} Housbwlie, No'. 17-2-7O3t2, Nedr^{Arya Samaj,Madannapet,Saidabad,} Hyderabad (A-5)

¶14

Mekala Girija, D/o. Mekala^{Bixapathi,Age 36 years,Occ Hoqge!9|d,Fyo 144}

¶15

D, Ramachlndrapuram, Bhongir^{Mandal and Bhongir District (4-6)}

¶16

Mantri Uppalaiah, S/o.^{MantriSubbaiah, Age 48 yearq Occ.Agriculture, Rl/o} Chanda Village, Katepally^{Mandal, Nalgonda District. (A-8)}

¶17

Vadapally Naveen Kumar,^{S/o.Late Eshwariah,4S9.5.9 y.egJs'.O"9} ?yt^{J^?b'} No.'17^{-2:70312, NearArya Samaj, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad (A-9)}

¶18

8, K.Raiesh Babu, S/o. Venkata^{Ramudu,Age 43.years,Occ.Army} f.etsgt'Iel' - nio.7s-ar s-004, Erasi Paradise Apts., Saleem N,gar, opposite To Mpl office, Saleem Nagar, Nndyal,^{KurnoolDistrict(A-10)}

¶19

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{No.'1,2,4,5'6,8'9and 10}

¶20

AND

¶21

The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Principal Secretary, Home Department,} Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶22

The Station House Officer,^{lbrahimpatnam Police Station, lbrahimpatnam,} Rachakonda.

¶23

Smt. Mekala Prasanna^{Bharghavi,W/o. Mekala Harshavardhan, Age28} vears, Occ.^{Housewife,FVo.li.No.5-16' Dandumailaram Village,} lbrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R. District

¶24

...RES,ONDENTS

¶25

Petition under Article 226^{of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiledtherewith, the High court may be}

¶26

pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 in harassing the petitioners on the behest of the respondent no.3 and her family in the guise of investigation without following due procedure of law as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent 2 not to harass the petitioners without following due process of law.

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶28

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 2 not harass the^petitioners on behest of the respondent no.3 and her family, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2: ASST. GP FOR HOME

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: - -^- -

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY UTRIT PETITION No.999 of 2024

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶36

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in harassing the petitioners on the behest of the respondent No.3 and her family in the^gpise of investigation without following due procedure of law as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct respondent No.2 not to harass tJ:e petitioners without followrng due process of law..."

¶37

The case of the petitioners is that the marriage^of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.3 was performed on 05.08.2020 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Customs. Soon after the marriage, disputes arose between^{petitionerNo. I} and rcspondent No.3 and respondent No.3 had lodged^a complaint against petitioner No.l and the other Petitioners,^who arc thc family mcmbers of^{petitionerNo.} 1. It is the^{further case} of the petitioners that acting on the complaint submitted^by respondent No.3 a case in crime No.471 of 2023,^dated '21.12.2023 \vas registered against the petitioners for the offcnces punishable under Sections^{498-A and 406 of I.P.C. and} Sections 3 and 4 ol the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.^{It is the}

wp-;rv-B#i

il i I I

further case of the petitioners that in pursuance of the registration of crime, the police have issued a notice as required under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the petitioners have submitted their explanation to the said notice. The grievance of the p'etitioners is that even after submitting the explanation to the notice issued under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., at the instance of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 is frequently summoning them to the police station, conlining them lor hours together and forcing them to enter into a settlement with respondent No.3 as per the terms dictated by her.

¶42

Learned Assistant Covernment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2, on instructions, would submit that acting on the complaint ol rcspondent No.3, a case in Crime No.57l of 2023 was registered against the petitioners and a notice as required under Section 4 I -A of Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioners and the petitioners wcre summoned for the purpose of investigation :rnd they are not interfering with the matrimonial disputes bctwccn petitioncr No.I and respondent No.3 in any manner.

¶43

In view o[ the abovc submissions, this Court, deems it appropriate to disposc of thc u,.rit perition, directing respondent

CVBR, J Wp 999 2024

t I ri

Nos.l and 2 not interfere with the matrimonial disputes pending between petitioner No. I and respondent No.3 in any manner. Respondents-police are further directed to issue notices duly specifying date and time so as to enable the petitioners to appear on the specified date and time in the said notice, as ald when the presence of the petitioners is required for the purpose of investigation in Crime Nos.571 of 2023.

¶48

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶49

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

To,

¶52

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTfON OFFICER^4r---

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

CTfON OFFICER

¶55

The Principal Secretary,^{Home Department'The State of Telangana'} Secretariai Buildings,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad..}

¶56

Z. ine Siition^{House"Officer, lbrahimp'atnam Police Station, lbrahimpatnam,} Rachakonda.

¶57

s. 6n; CCto sRl^{NAGESHWARRAo PUJARI,Advocate-[oPUC]} i. il; aa.'itci^{FoR HoME,Hishcourt for the State of Telangana'[ouT]} 5. Two CD Copies BN GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110112024

ORDER

WP.No.999 ot 2024

grAtg oA
{
()
oof 1 2 [tB 2t7-[
,
i ,- i;'i..r "

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @)w'u 2-+ t

Mekala Harshavardhan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Harshavardhan 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

Shireesha Mahankali Vs The State of Telangana

Kunwar Adil Rizwan Khan Vs The State Of Telangana

Pumpum Vincent Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Sadhineni Srinivas Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ramavath Srinuvas Nayak Vs The State of Telangana