High Court · 2025

2. The Superintendent of Police, Nagarkurnool District, At Nagarkurnool. 3. Circle lnspector of Police, At Nagarkurnool 4. Sri. B. Naresh Babu, S/o. Narsaiah Aged about 42 yeas, Occ. Munlcipal Commissioner, Rl/o. Manganoor Village, Bijinapally Mandal, Nagarkurnool District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under-Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring, the action of the respondents more particularly that of respondent No.3 in summoning the petitioner to the police station notwithstanding the reply given by petitioner on 0810412025 in response to notice issued by respondent No.3 in terms of Section 35 (3) of the BNSS corresponding to Section 41 (a) of the repealed CrPC in connection with case in Crime No. 5/35 registered against Accused No.'1 and 2 and others therein for the alleged offences under Section 318 (4), 316 (2).316 (5) of the BNS challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 1a, 10 (t ) (g), 21 and 300 A of rhe constitution of rndia and section 35 (a) of BNS from.being violative of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble supreme court in Arnesh Kumar vsl state of Bihar and consequenfly direct the respdndents not to threaten the petitioner or summon the petitioner to the respondents under the pretext of enquiry and insisting the petitioner to pay Rs. 1g,53,000/- as specified in the FIR daled 07101t2025. lA NO: 't OF 2O25 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 SHonto forbear from contacting petitioner or summoning petitioner to the Police statibn for the afleged pursuance of enquiry in pursuance of notice dated 01t04t2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Gp FOR HOME WRIT PETI TION NO: 1 1468 0F 2025 Between: l9Va,n1n Kumar Reddy, S/o K. Jay Reddy Aged about 61 years, Occ_ Ex_ lu1igipqt commissiorier, Rl/o. pre6enuv,-heiioing ai rrai r.ril)ob,.dini,iis Orchid Kaman Gat, padmanagar Cotony',' l.,tagiikuinJof Oistrict AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of reranoana- Rep. by its principar secretary Home, secretariat 2 Building, Hyderabad The Superintendent of police, Nagarkurnool District, At Nagarkurnool. Circle Inspector of Police, At Nagarkurnool . i Naresh Babu, S/o. Narsaiah. Aged about 42 years, Occ_ IVunicipal ssioner, Rt/o. Manganoor Villag6, si;inap-arr[ (la.iJ"r, Nasrikui-;E6i 3 4. Sri. B. Commi District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particurarry one in J the nature.of a wrft of Mandamus decraring, the action of the respondents more particularly 'that of respondent No.3 in summoning the petitioner to the porice station notwithstanding the repry given by petitioner on 08-04-2025 in response to notice issued by respondent No.3 in terms of section 3s (3) of the BNSS corresponding to section 41 (a) of the repealed crpc.in connection with case in crime No. 5/35 registered against Accused No.'r and 2 and others therein fgr the aileged offences undersection 318 (4), 316(2\ 316 (5) of the BNS chailenged in this writ Petition as being arbitrary, iilegar and viorative of Articres 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300 A of rhe constitution of rndia and section 3s (a) of BNS from being violative of the principres raid down by the Hon'bre supreme court in Arniesh Kumar vs. state of Bihar and consequenfly direct the respondents not to threaten the petitioner or summon the petitioner to the respondents under the pretext of enquiry and insisting the petitioner !o pay Rs. 19,53,000/- as specified in the FIR dated 07-01-2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 sHorto forbear from contacting petitioner or summoning petitioner to the Police Station for the alleged pursuance of enquiry in pursuance of notice dated 01-04-2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VtJAy B.PAROPAKARI Gounsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Gp FOR HOME The Gourt made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P. Nos.11464 and. LL46A of 2O25 COMMON ORDER: Since, the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Iearned Government Pleader for Flome appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 3, in both the writ petitions, ald with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved in the Writ Petitions and the manner of disposal,. this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.4, who is one and the same in both the Writ Petitions, is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ petitions.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that despite the petitioners submitting reply, dt.08.04.2025, in response to the notice \ 2 issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS in connection with Cr.No.5/2025, dt.O7.O1.2025, the respondents-authorities are summoning the petitioners to the police station thereby causing harassment, r,vhich action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary, apart from violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appea-ring for official respondents submits that based on the complaint made by the 4th respondent herein, the authorities have registered a case ulde Cr. No.5 / 20-25, dt.O7.Ol.2025, against one K.Ramulu, A.Ramesh & others under Sections 318(4), 316(2\, 316(5) of BNS and are investigating into the aforesaid crime.

6. l,earned Government Pleader further submits that in the course of investigation into the aforesaid crime registered, the respondents-authorities have issued notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS calling upon the petitioners to submit the information as desired, for the purpose of ascertaining their involvement in the commission of the aforesaid crime. 3 7 . Learned Government pleader further submits that as the petitioners, on being served with notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS, have submitted their ..explanation on 08.04.2025, the authorities would consider the aforesaid explanations, and if complicity of the petitioners in commission of the aforesaid offence is found, the authorities will take further action to add/array the petitioners as accused by following the procedure prescribed under BNSS and also by obtaining necessarv orders from the Court. B. Learned Government pleader further submits that since, the respondents-authorities have issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the petitioners anticipating that they may be arrayed as accused in the aforesaid crime, have filed the present Writ petition to prevent the respondents-authorities from taking further action or conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime registered.

9. I have taken note of the respective submissions made. \ 4 a\

10. Admittedly, based on the compiaint made by one B.Naresh Babu, a case uide Cr.No.S /2025 has been registered against one K.Ramulu and A.Ramesh & Others, relating to fraudulent payment of wages to outsourcihg employees working in the limits of Nagarkurnool Municipality. 1 1 . Though the petitioners claim of they not being involved in the commission of the aloresaid crime ald are no way connected, the complicity of the petitioners'in the aforesaid crime carr oniy be ascertained when the respondents-authorities conduct investigation into the aforesaid crime registered, for which the respondents- authorities have issued notices to the petitioners herein under Section 35(3) of BNSS, to which the petitioners claim to have submitted their explalation on 08.04.2025.

12. Since, the petitioners have submitted explanation to notice issued to them, this Court is of the view that respondents-authorities are to be directed to conduct investigation in to the case registered uide Cr.No.5/2025 and take further \ \ action, including adding/ arraying the 5 other persons, who are fbund to be involved in the commission of aforesaid crime, strictly by following due process of law i3. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Principal Secretary, Home, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Nagarkurnool District, At Nagarkurnool. 3. The Circle Inspector of Police, At Nagarkurnool 4. One CC to SRI VIJAY B.PAROPAKAR|, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOtr/E, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BSR GJP M-' HIGH COURT DATED:1 710412025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.11464 and 11468 of 2025 1 k ,(c o (-) 3?, Il I ( :r i t cTP.SID c9 DTSPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS 0 fl\X \\