Partly allowed

Lekkala Jeevana Shiva Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jul 2025WP/23289/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order by the Telangana High Court set aside three writ petitions challenging Magistrates' orders under Section 130 BNSS. The Court found the Magistrate failed to follow Chapter IX procedure, lacking application of mind. The matter was remanded to conduct inquiry properly without personal attendance, granting liberty to file representations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to respondent with direction to complete inquiry within one month following Chapter IX BNSS procedure without forcing personal attendance.

Lekkala Jeevana Shiva Krishna Vs The State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs: 23278 23289 AND 2329'.toF²⁰²⁵

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 23278OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Lekkala Gopi Krishna, S/o. L. Purushottam^Naidu, |Sed^{qboyl 31 ye1s,Occ.} Business, iVo. H.No.3-6/9, Narsingi l-fieights,^{Narsingi Village,Gandipet} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

ANO

¶12

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{HomeDepartrnent,} Secretariat, Hyderaba d.

¶13

The Special Executive Magistrate^{cumDeputyCommissionerof Police,} Rajendra Nagar Zone, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Narsingi^PS.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to . issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other^{appropriatewrit, order or} direction, to declare^{proceedingsvide MC.No.5612025 datedO1 .08.2025issued} by the 2nd Respondent u/s 130^{BNSSdirecting the Petitionerto attend inquiry} and to take necessary^preventive measures^{by binding overthe Petitioner for} keeping peace and^good behavior^{without assigningany reasons qr setting forth} any substance of information^{receivedas being illegal, arbitrary, in violationof} provisions of BNSS and in violation of Art 21 of the^{constitutionof lndiaand} consequently set aside the same.

¶17

l,A NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High )ourt may be^pleased to suspend the proceedings vide MC, No'56/2025 dated⁽ 1.O8.2O25 issued by the 2nd Respondent u/s 130 BNSS directing the Petitioner to attend inquiry.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.VIDYA SAGAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI ARAGTIURAM

¶20

Counsel for the Reqpondents: SRI R.I-AXMIKANTH REI)DY, AGP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO: 23289 OF 2A25

¶21

Between:

¶22

Lekkala .leevana Shiva-Krishna, S/o. L. Purushottirm Naidu, Aged.about 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No:3-6/9, Narsingi leights, Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

AND

¶25

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

¶26

The Special Ekecutive Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajendra Nagar Zone, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶27

The Station House Officer, Narsingi PS, Cyberabacl

¶28

...RESPQNDENTS

¶29

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, lhe High Court may be pleased to issue a Wr:it of Mandamus or any other a ppropriate writ, order or direction, to declare proceedings vide MC.No.SSl2O25 laled 01 .08.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent u/s 130 BNSS directing the Pr:titioner to attend inquiry and to take necessary preventive rneasures by bindin; over the Petitioner for keeping peace and good behavlor without a$signing an / reasons or setting forth any substance of information received as being illegal arbitrary, in violation of provisions of BNSS and in violation of Art 21 of the r)onstitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same.

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in th€ affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} suspend the proceedings vide MC.No.5512025 dated 01.08.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent u/s 130 BNSS directing the Petitioner to attend inquiry.

¶32

Counsel for thb Petitioner: SRI G.MDYA SAGAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI A.RAGHURAM

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 23297 OF 2025

¶35

Between:

¶36

Lekkala Purushottam Naidu, S/o. L. Padmanabha Naidu, Aged about⁵⁷ years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.3$/9, Narsingi Heights, Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶37

...PETITIONER

¶38

AND

¶39

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

¶40

The Special Executive Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner of^Police, Rajendra Nagar Zone, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶41

The Station House Officer, Narsingi PS, Manchirewla,^{Gandipet, Narsingi'} Telangana-500O89

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High^{Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ of MaMamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to declare proceedings vide MC.No.S4l2O25 dated^{01.08.2O25 issued} by the 2nd Respondent u/s 13O BNSS directing the^{Petitbner to attendinquiry} and to take necessary preventive measures by binding over^{the Petitioner for} keeping peace and good behavior without assigning any^{reasons or settingforth} any substance of information received as being illegal,^{arbitrary, in violationof} provisions of BNSS and in violation of Art 21 of tte Constitution of lndia^and consequently set aside the same.

¶44

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶45

Petition .rnder Section 1_51 CPC praying that in he circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Sourt may be^pleased to suspend the proceedings vide MC.No.5412025 dated C 1.O8.2O25 issued by the 2nd Respondent u/s 130 BNSS directing the Petitioner t,r attend inquiry.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.SAI PRASEN

¶47

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI R.L.AXMIKANTH REl)DY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: COMMON ORDI:R

¶48

TIIE HON'BLE^{SRTJUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN} WRITP^{ETITIONNos.2327873289 and 23291oI2O25}

¶49

COMMO NO^RI)ER:

¶50

Heard Mr.G.Vidya^{Sagar, learned SeniorCounsel} representmg Mr.A.Raghuram,^{leamed counsel for the} petitioners^{in W.P.Nos'23278an'l 23289 of 2025' Mr'G'Sai} Prasen,^{learned counsel for the petitionerin W'P'No'23291 of} 2025andMr.R.LaxmikanthReddy'leamedAssistant Govemment^{Pleader for Home'}

¶51

These^{three writ petitionsare fited challengingthe orders} in M.C.Nos.54,^{55 and 56 of 2025' alt dated 0l'08'2025} passed by^{respondent No'2 -Special Executive Magistrate-} cum-Deputy^{Commissionerof Police'Rajendranagar Zone'} Cyberabad,^{under Section 130 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha} Sanhit4^{2023 (for short, 'BNSS} '2023')'

¶52

Respondent^{No'2 has passed said orders in M'C'Nos'54'} 55 and^{56 of 2025, alt dated 01'08'2025 basing on the report}

¶53

dated^{19.07.2025of respondentNo'3 - Station HouseOfFrcer'}

¶54

¶55

Narsingi Police Station. There is reference rrr four (4) crimes in the impugned order i.e., l) Crime No.2 of 2016 for the offencesr punishable under Sections 41, 12 and 120(b) of Bharatiay Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BNS, 2023,), Section l3Q) of the Unlawful Activities ( rrevention) Ac! 1967 (for shorg 'UApA, Act,) and Sections 4 and 20(a) of the Indian Telegraph Act, l8g5 of Dumbrigudz police Station, Andhra Pradesh; 2) Crime No.l27l of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 35le), 316(2), 3lg(4), 336Q);:j38, 336(3) and340e) read with Secrions 62 and3(5) of BNS, 2023 of Madhapur police Station; 3) ( trime No.904 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sect ons 329(3) and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, ZO23 ot Narsingi police Station; and 4) Crime No.l140 of 2025 f,.tr the offences punishable under Secrions 329(3), 32q(4)and ti03(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 of Narsingi police S ration.

¶56

Petitioner in W.p.No.2329l of ZO25 ie., Mr.Lekkala Purushotam Naidu is the Managing partner of ir4ls.Vision

¶57

¶58

Resorts, which^{is ctaiming land admeasuring Acs'222'00} guntas in Sy.Nos.123,^{124, 125, 142, 143, 144' 145' 146'147} ' 148, l4g, 150,^{152, l52lAA, l52ta+153' 154 and 174'} situated at^{Sultanpally Village and Grampanchayat'} Shamshabad^{Mandat (previouslyChevella Mandal)'} Rangareddy^{District, Telangana' It appears that there are} disputes among^{the partnersof the said firm' The said firm} represented by^{its Managing Partner i'e'' Mr'Lekkala} Purushotam^{Naidu,petitionerin W'P'No'23291of 2025has} Frted a^{petition under Section 9 of the Arbitrationand} Conciliation^{Act, 1996 vide C'O'P'No'45 of 2024against is} partner and^{vide order dated28'Ol'z}zs,leamedCommercial} Court allowed^{the said application'}

¶59

a 5. Mr.E.Damodar,^{Retired IPS Offrcerhas lodged} complaint^{dated11.06-2025with respondent No'3 -Police} Station alleging^{theft of Prefabricated ServantQuarter'} criminal^{trespass and damaging compound wall of plot} ln Sy.No.369/Part^of admeasuring^{l73O square} Yards

¶60

¶61

Manchirevula Village by the petitioners in rll the aforesaid writ petitions, promoters/Directors of N{/s.Nockel India private Limited. Respondent No.3 has registered a case in Crime No.ll40 of 2025 against the petitioners fi,r the aforesaid offences

¶62

It is also apt to note that on the r:omplaint dated 06.05.2025 of the said Mr.E.Damodar, Inspe ctor General of Police (Retired), respondent No.3 has regis:ered a case in Crime No.904 of 2025 against the petitionerr herein for the aforesaid offences. Allegations leveled against the petitioners in the said complaint are that the petitioners tr edlattempted to grab the said property belongs to his wife.

¶63

On the complaint dated 27.09.2024 lodg:d by N[r.Ganta R.ajasekhar Rao, Police, Madhapur polio: Station, has registered a case in Crime No.l27l of 2C24 against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and on tte allegations of forgery, c'riminal intimidation and threatening t r kill, etc.

¶64

¶65

It is^{also relevant to note that the said IWs'NockeI India} Private Limited^{represented by Mr LekkalaPurushotamNaidu} has filed a^{complaint under Section200 of Cr'P'C'against} Mrs.E.Shanti^{and her husband Mr'E'Darnodaralleging} criminal breach^{of trust, cheating, etc'}

¶66

As^{discussedsupra, referring the report dated} lg.OT.2)25andtheaforesaidfourcrimes,respondentNo'2has issued impugned^{orders all dated01'08'2025 stating that the} petitioners have^{not onlycommittingcriminal activities'but} also tikely^{to commitwrongful act that mayoccasiona breach} of peace or^{disturb the public tranquility in the limits of} Rajendranagar^{Zone,Cyberabad'Thereis dire necessity to} take preventive^{measuresby binding over the petitionen for} keeping^{peace and goodbehavioretc'}

¶67

Mr.G.Vidya^{Sagar, learnedSenior Counsel appearingfor} the petitioners,^{on instructions, wouldsubmit that respondent} No.2 has^{passed the aforesaid order dated 0l'08'2025without} foltowing the^{due procedure laid down under BNSS'2023'}

¶68

¶69

Petitioners received notice under Section 35(i ) of BNS S,2OZ3 in Crime Nos.904 and ll40 of 2025, pendirrg on the file of Narsingi Police Station.

¶70

ll. Whereas, learned Assistant Govemment pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that considering the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioners in Crime Nos.904 and 1140 of 2025, the Investigating OfEcer in the said crimes has already served notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 or the petitioners. Petitioners have subrnitted explanations to th< said notice. In Crirne No.127l of 2024, pending on rhe file of Madhapur Police Station- the tnvestigating Officer on concluding investigation has already filed charge sheet against the petitioners and C.C. number is awaited.

¶71

He would further submit that in the aforeraid order dated 01.08.2025, respondent No.2 specifically staterl that petitioners have involved in the aforesaid four (4) crimes and they are resorting to criminal activities. There is Iikelihood of

¶72

committing^{wrongfutacts by the petitioners herein' which may} cause breach^{of peace in the limits of Rajendranagar'} Cyberabad.^{Therefore, there is dire necessity to bind over the} petitioners to^{keep peace and also not committing any further} offences in^{the aforesaid period' With the aforesaid} observations,^{respondent No'2 directed the petitioners to bind} over before^{him in-persons on 05'08'2025at ll'00 Hours for} inquiry.^{Petitionersinstead of attendingbefore respondent} No.2 for^{the said inquiry,filed the present writ petition} challenging^{the impugned order dated 01'08'2025'}

¶73

tn^{the light of the saidsubmissions'it is relevant to note} that Chapter^{IX of BNSSdeals with security for keeping the} peace and^{for good behaviorand Sections 130 and 131 of} BNSS,^{2O23dealswithorder to be made' it is relevant and it is} extracted^below:

¶74

*130. Order to be made - When^{a Magistrate} acting^{undersection 126,section127' section 128} Or section^{129, deemsit necessaryto require any} person to^{showcauseunder such section'he shatl} make an^{orderin writing, setting forth the}

t-'

l I I I ! i ir

substance of the information received, rhe amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number of suleties, after considering the sufficiency and fitness rf sureties.

¶80

1 I :

¶81

Prscodure in respeet of person present in Court - If the person in respect of rrhom such order is made is present in Court, it sha[ be read over to him, or, if he so desires, the substance thereof shall be explained to him.,,

¶82

The object of,the said order is that resp,rndent No.2 can direct any person to show-cause why thev should not be required to execute a bond to maintain peace and good behavior under the said section and make an order in written stating the substance of the inforrnation receivr d by him which led to initiate fhe proceedings, etc.

¶83

It is the specific contention of Mr.(iVidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the )etitioners that respondent No.2 has not enclosed the copy of,he report dated 19.07.2025 of respondent No.3 referred in the impugned ord,er dated 01 08.2025. But there is no requesl made by the

¶84

¶85

petitioners to^{respondentNo'2 to furnish copy of the same'} Therefore,^{petitioners have to submita representation seeking} copy of^{the said reportdated19'01 '2025' Without seeking the} said report,^{petitionerscan't allege that respondent No'2 has} not enclosed^{copy of the report dated 19'07'2025'}

¶86

As^{discussedsupra' ot the basis of the report dated} lg.O7.ZO25^{of respondentNo'3, respondent No'2 has issued} the impugned^{order dated0l'08'2025' Admittedly'petitioners} are accused^{in the aforesaidfour (4) crimesmentionedin the} impugned^{order. In Crime Nos'904 and ll40 of 2025'} investigation^{is still} Pending'

¶87

L7. As^{discussed suPrd, onthe comPlaint todgedbY} Mr.E.Damodar,^{Retired I'G'of Police, alleging that the} petitioners^{tried to grab the property belongs to his wife'} Respondent^{No.3has registered the aforesaidtwo crimes'} Instead of^{his wift lodging complaint'lvtr'E'Damodarhas} lodged a^{complaint with respondentNo'3' Without considering} the said^{aspect,respondent No'3 has registered the aforesaid}

¶88

¶89

two crimes against the petitioners. There I s no explanation from respondent No.3 on the said aspect.

¶90

As discussed supra, M/s.Vision Resorls, represented by its Managing Partner i,e., Sri Lekkala purust otam Naidu, i.e., petitioner in W.P.No.2329l of 2025 hx filt:cl petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliatiorr Act, 1996 vide C.O.P.No.45 oi 2OZ4 before the leamecl S recial Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Dispu es, Rangaretldy District at L.B.Nagar, against Sri Ganta Rajrisekhar Rao and ll others. Vide order date<l 2g.01.2025, Iearned triat Court allowed the said petition granting temporary injunction in favour of the pgtitioRer rcsrraining responderrt No.l ther.ein, his men, representatives, family members, etr:., from selling, transferring, alienating, changing nature (,f property or creating third party right in any manners v.hatsoever with respect to the petition schedule properties till the disposal, of the arbitml proceedings. There are disputes between petitioner and respondent No.l in the said C.O.p.No.45 of 2025 are with

¶91

¶92

regard to the^{land admeasuringAcs'222'00 guntas in} Sy.Nos.¹ 23,^{124,125,142, 143, 144, 145, 146' 147' 148' 149'} 150, 152,^{l5zlL1^, ll}laa, 153, 154 and 174' sitr'ratedat} Sultanpalty^{Village and Grampanchaya!Shamshabad Mandal} (previousty Chevella^{Mandal), RangareddyDistrict'} Telangana.

¶93

There^{is no considerationof the said aspectsby} respondent M'2^{in the impugned ordersof respondent No'2'} Even then,^{respondent No'2 directed the petitioners to attend} the enquiry^{in-personson 05'08'2025 statingthat he is fully} satisfied^{that there is any apprehensionof committing illegal} and wrongful^{acts in the said area by the petitioners'} Respondent^{No-2 did not follow the procedurelaid down} under Chapter^{tX of BNSS'RespondentNo'2 can't directthe} petitioners^{to attendenquiry in terms of Section 130 of BNSS'} At the^{most, respondent No'2 can make an order in writing} setting forth^{the substance of the information received'the} amount of^{the bond to be executed,the term for which it is to}

t I i

be in force and number of sureties, after considering the sufficiency and fitness of sureties. Thus, there is no application of mind by respondent No.2 while passing irrtpugned order by respondent No.2.

¶98

It is also relevant to note that responderrl No.2 is an IpS Officer and Deputy Commissioner of police. IIe is exercising his power under Chapter IX of BNSS. Therefore, he has to apply his mind and follow the procedure lrid down under BNSS. It appears that respondent No.2 is i cting under the influenq: of Mr.E.Damodar, I.G. of police, ;i Retired police Officer.

¶99

It is also apt to note that there ir, no definition 'Magistrate' or 'Executive Magistrate' under BNSS. Subject property is 1730 square yards plot in Sy No.369/part of Machirevula Village, Even then, respondenr No.2, an IpS Officer, is conducting enquiry and passing crders, all dated 01.08.20115, that too without following the procedure laid down under BNSS and without application of rrind. Therefore, L-7

¶100

¶101

¶102

Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, shall^supervisethe enqulry.

¶103

In the light of the said submissions,^{these Writ Petitions} are disposed of setting aside the impugued ordersⁱⁿ M.C.No.54, 55 and 56 of 2024, all^{dated01.08.2025of} respondent No-2. Matter is remanded back^{to respondent No.2} with a direction to conduct enquiry strictly^{in accordance with} the procedure laid down under Chapter IX^of BNSS.^{Liberty is} granted to the petitioners to submit reprpsentation^to respondent No.2 with a request to^{fumish copy of the report} dated, 19.07.2025 of respondent No.3. On^{receipt of the said} representation, respondent No.2 shall^{furnish copy of the said} report to the petitioners. On^receipt of^{the said reportdated} 19.01 .2025, petitioners shall submit^{explanationsto} respondent No.2 by enclosing all^{the relevant documents. On} receipt of such explanations^{alongwith documents, respondent} No.2 shatl consider the same and^pass orders^{in accordance}

¶104

with law. However,^petitioners shall^{cooperationwith}

¶105

ii/1

¶106

¶107

respondenl No.2 in concluding the enquiry. Rerpondent No.2

¶108

shall not insist the petitioners to attend in-person for the

¶109

enquiry. However, he shall complete the enq lry and pass

¶110

orders in terms of Chapter IX of BNSS within cne (l) months

¶111

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶112

Miscellaneous applications, if any pendir g, shall stand

¶113

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶114

SD/. A.JAYASREE As SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, . SECTION OFFICER iiil 1. fhe Principal Secretary, Home Department, Sqcrlet ari at, Hyderabad, State of ',/ Tetangana.

¶115

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

¶116

The Special Executive Magistrate cum Deputy Cc mmissioner of Police, Rajendra Nagar Zone, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶117

The Station House Ofricer, Narsingi PS Cyberabad.

¶118

The Statior House Officer, Manchirevula, Gandipet, l', arsingi PS, Tehngana500089.

¶119

One CC to SRI G.SAI PRASEN, Advocate IOPUCJ

¶120

One CC to SRI A.RAGHURAM, Advoeate [OPUC]

¶121

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶122

I Two CD Cc,pies

BSR

P {KS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610812025

0 7 DIT ;1t1
\r'. +
.<br>

¶128

COMMON ORDER

¶129

WP.Nos.23278,23289 and 23291 of 2)2i

¶130

DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETII'IONS, WITHOUT COSTS

Lekkala Jeevana Shiva Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekkala Jeevana Shiva Krishna 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

Lakkakula Jayaprada Vs Mohammad Mazaharuddin

Smt. Manjeeth Kaur Vs Mr. Sardar Haricharan Singh

Sri Chinthalapani Narayana Reddy Vs Chinthalapani Surender Reddy

Baddam Ram Reddy Vs Kandula Arun Kumar

Mr. Sana Satish Babu Vs State of Telangana

Madavaneni Raghunandan Rao Vs The State of Telangana