N. Manohar Reddv v. Central Bureau of lnvesfioarion,, Anti Corruption Branch, Kendriya Sadan, Koti, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- Constitution of India arts. 2O(3), 21
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 160, 167
Judgment
Cause title
Petition Under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewlth, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more particurarly one in the nature of writ of fulandamus decraring the action of the respondents in summoning the petitioner to the respondents office in connection with FIR in RC 18N2o11 dated 17.08-201 1 as iilegar, arbitrary and viorative of Art. i9 (1) (g), Artich 20 (3) and Articte 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondents not to summon the petitioner to their offic€ or require his presence in the said case. j I i l i l I I i I I I l I I i I ! I t I.ANO:1 oF 20.1 2 (WPMP .N0:9073 O F 20121 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the ci-cumstances stated in the affidavit file,l ;n 5urt.rt of *re petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the rer; pondents from summoning the petitioner for interrogation in connection with RC 1gN2O11 dated .17.08.2011, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : M/s INDUS LAW FIRM Counselforthe Respondents : SRI MAHESH KOSG., SC FOR CBI The Court made the foflowing ORDER HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7l78 of. 2AL2
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Mahesh Kosgi, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2. With their consent this writ petition is taken up for disposal.
This writ petition is fil, ed seeking the following prayer:- "to declare the action of the respondents in summoning the petitioner to the respondent's office in connection with FIR 'n RC 1BA/2011 dated 17.08.2011 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 19 (l) (il, Article 2O(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to summon the petitioner to their offke or require his presence in the said case. "
Today when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 15.03.2012 in I.A.No.1 of 2OtZ, has passed ilre t I following interim order:- "If the attendance and examination of the petitioner ,s required in connection with any crime, respondents are directed to follow the procedure aS contemplated under Sections 160 and 167 Cr.p.C. There shall be a further direction that if any statement of the petitioner is to be recorded, the same shall be recorded in the presence of one Advocate of the choice of the petitioner, pending fu rlher orders. " \ I I I I I j ; l I . I ' 'I ! I I i t , ) \ i'
Lea-ned standing counsel appearing foilespondent No.2 submits that respondents have filed charge sheet in- connection with FIR n RC 18A/2011 dated 17.08.2011 and the petitioner is not arrayr-.d as accused in the same.
Lea-ned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the sarne and subn, its that no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition and pray this Court to close the lvrit petition.
Reclrding the above submissions, th!s Writ Petition is closed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SO/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY AqsrsrNr REG|STRAR / To 1 2 3 SA GJP . One CC o M/s TNDUS LAW FIRM, Advocate fOpUCi 9n" 99 ro SRt MAHESH KOSG|, bc ron cAr 1o-e-uc,y . Two CD rlopies 'Secrroru oFFtcER I 18 sEP fiffi l _; i -,.r,, .)/ ,.7 " \111 1 ' -.' HIGH COURT DATED:ill 10712025 ORDER WP.No.7il78 ot 2012 : I i I I I I I I CLOSING THE W.P WITHOUTCOSTS. fl$- h a, {
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.