Badhavath Vikas v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Department, TS Secretariat, Hyd erabad. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Tandur Town Tandur Town police station. 4. Sri Madiga Badeppa, S/o. Badeppa, Age 45 years, Occ: NGO's employee, Rl/o. Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District Telangana. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the 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 mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in interfering with the personal life and liberty of Petitioner ln respect of suspection in a married women missing case, in which she left home valunterily by quarelling with her husband in which the petitioner is no where related, by having an unwanted doubt on the petitioner as his wife having illiciate relation with petitioner that the Respondent No-4 influencing the respondent No-3, and dragging the petitioner into a criminal issue and threattening the petitioner to come police station, that the Respondent No-3 making continues calls to petitioner even though the petitioner informed them that he has no knowledge about the missing women and also said that that the missing women not even made a call to him since long time, by saying all these to Respondent No-3 that the petitioner requested them to verify his call data and his locations for finding the truth in his words but the respondent No-3 ..,/ // l: not even listening the petitioner and theretning the petitioner to come to police station without any justified reason and pressurizing to setfle the matter with the respondent No-4, which is iltegal and contrary to law and infringement of Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners as guaranteed uncler Article 19,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.3 not to harass the petitioner instead of looking on the technical evidences and call data's of the petitioner. in interfering with the personal life and liberty of Petitioner ln respect of suspection in a married women missing case, in which she left home valunterily by quare ing with her husband in which the petitioner rs no where related, by having an unwanted doubt on the petitioner as his wife having illiciate relation with petitioner that the Respondent No.4 influencing the respondent No-3, and dragging the petitioner into a criminal issue and threattening the petitioner to come police station that the Respondent No-3 making continues calls to petitioner even though the petitioner informed them that he has no knowledge about the missing women and also said that that the missing women not even made a call to him since long time, by saying all these to Respondent No-3 that the petitioner requested them to verify his call data and his locations for finding the truth in his words but the respondent No-3 not even listening the petitioner and threatening the petitioner to come to police station without any justified reason and pressurizing to setfle the matter with the respondent No-4, which is illegal and contrary to law and infringement of Fundamental Rights of the petitioners as guaranteed under Article 1g, 21 and 300-,4 of the Constitution of lndia. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s PAGILLA JAYANTHI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Gp FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: -- The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ etition N .a7O42of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the pafties, the writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage'

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of /s involved, this Court |s of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.4 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, the 3'd respondent is interfering with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner in the name of investigation into case registered, vide Crime No 113 of 2025 dt.25.05.2025 under the head 'missing woman'; that the respondents- authorities have registered the aforesaid crime based on the complaint made by the 4h respondent herein; and that in the crime, though the petitioner's name is not mentioned, the 3td respondent authority is suspecting the petitioner to be involved in the commission of the aforesald crime, and is harassing him, thereby, interfering with his personal life and liberty, which action of the respondents-authorities, it is contended as illegal, arbiti'ary and in violation of Articles !4, !9 and 21 of the Constitution of India. l'/ , a 2

4. Per contra, learned Government pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3 wourd submit that on the 4rh respondent approaching the respondents-a uthorities and rodging a complaint on his wiFe, the authorities have registered a case, vide Crime No.113 of 2025 dt.24.05.2025 under the head 'woman missing,.

5. Learned Government preader further submits that during the course of investigation, the respondents-authorities coilected cail data report of woman missing mobire phone bearing No.g121463548 and in the cail data report, it was revealed that the missing woman was regularly contacting the petitioner; and that the 3'd respondent in the course of investigation into the aforesaid crime arso obtained bank statement of missing woman, which revealed that there are money transactions between the petitioner and the missing woman.

6. Learned Government pleader further submits that since the authorities have found the missing woman to be in touch with the petitioner regularly, the authorities have cailed the petitioner over phone to come to the police station for the purpose of investigation, but he denied to give information about the missing woman; and that since, the petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation into the aforesaid crime registered under the head 'missing woman'on the 3d respondent police station, the authorities could not serve notice on him under Section 94 of BNSS to elicit information from him at the first instance. '\- 1 I 3

7. Learned Government Pleader further submits that if only the petitioner co-operates with the investigation by furnishing the required information to enable the authorities to conduct investigation into the crime, the authorities can ascertain as to whether the petitioner is involved in the commission of the aforesaid crime or not. B. Learned Government Pleader further submits that if the petitioner approaches the respondents-authorities by appearing in person and accepts notice under Section 94 of BNSS and provides information in his possession, the authorities wouid take further action to ascertain as to the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the aforesaid crime or not.

9. On the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Pleader, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would approach the respondents-authorities to collect notice under Section 94 of BNSS and provide information in his possession to the authorities for conducting investigation into Crime No.113 of 2025.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since, the petitioner is now willing to approach the respondents-authorities, the authorities may be directed to conduct investigation into the crime by following due process of law without interferlng into his personal life and liberty. t \ & I I 4

11. Learned Government pleader assures this Court that if the petitioner approaches the respondents-a uthorities in person and receives notice under Section 94 of BNSS and furnishes information in his possession, the authorities wourd conduct investigation into the aforesaid crime in accordance with law

12. The aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties are taken on record

13. Having regard to the submissicns made as above, since, the petitioner now undertakes to appear before the 3d respondent in connection with Crime No.113 of 2025 by receiving notice under Section 94 of BNSS and also furnish the information in his possession to the authorities, enabring them to conduct investigation in crime No.113 of 2025, this court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to serve notice under Section 94 of BNSS and conduct Further investigation into the aforesaid crime strictly in accordance with law without interfering into the personal life and liberty of the petitioner.

74. Subject to above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of No order as to costs.

15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed_ //TRUE coPYil SD/-M, OSMA N ALI BAIG TANT REGISTRAR To 1 2 The Princioal Telangana at The Superinte ndent of police, Vikarabad Secreta Hydera d ry to Home Department, TS Secretariat, State of $ CTION OFFICER

3. The Station House Officer, Tandur Town Tandur Town Police Station. 4. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to Mis. PAGILLA JAYANTHI, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies I I SA LS i i HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 ) ) ORDER WP.No.17042 of 2025 ,. 2 0 sEP 2025 ti- 1-'.. , - " ..:,"/ .l :a i,.,2 ,:,/ i t DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. @ 2d