Sri Umakanth Katta v. '1 . State of Telangana

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent the Station House Officer, Adibatla Police Station, in continuously summoning and harassing the Petitioner without any lav,rful authority, despite full cooperation and without the Petitioner's name being mentioned in either the FIR or the original complaint, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner without following due process of law and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. t-_ - I.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci -cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to summon, harass or call the [:'etitioner to the police station without following due process of law and without iss.ring any formal notice or legal necessity. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHALLA SRINIVAS Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.17662 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Iearned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in brief, is that the 3'd respondent is continuously summoning the petitioner to the 3'd respondent police station and harassing tlre petitioner despite the petitioner has complied with notice dated

15.06.2025 issued under Section 941179 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by submitting the relevant information/ explanation on 18.06.2025 without the petitioner being arrayed as accused in any crime, which action of the respondents, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary and also amounting to respondent authorities interfering with the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of responden[s submits that based on the complaint made by Sri M. Balakrishna, Municipal 2 Commissioner Adibatla Municipality, the respo rdent authoritics have regislered a case uid.e crime No.345 of 2O2+ trnder Se ctions 318(4), 336(3), 3aoe) of BNSS of Adibatla polir;e sration, Rerchakonda Commissioneratc.

4. Learncd Government pleader further sul;rnits that in the course of investigation into the aforesaid r :rime registered against the accused therein, the accused claimccl of they traving purchas;ed the subject land from the petitior_rc r herein and as slrch in order to elicit information, the respon:lent auth()rities have iss;ued notice dated 1S.05.2O2S under Sc:.tion 941179 of BNSS,

5. Le:2pn661 Government pleader lurther strltnrits that the respondent authorities except issuing notice to the petitioner to furnish information sought for thereunder are n:)t interfering in the civil dispute nor harassing the petitioner in ,:onne.tion with thc investigation into the aforesaid crime.

6. Learn<:d Government pleader further su tmits thal the respondent authorities had calted the petitioner,rs the call data report obtained by them showed that the a r:cuserr in the aforesaid crime are in touch with the petitioner h,:rein regulierly "rcw J

7. l,earned Government Pleader further submits that as of date the petitioner is not arrayed as accused in the aforesaid

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. Though the respondent authorities claim of the petitioner not being arrayed as accused in connecLion with the aforesaid crime and for the said reason having issued notice dated

15.06.2025 under Section 9a /179 ot BNSS calling upon the petitioner to providc documents mentioned therein which are not furnished till date. The petittoner on the other hand claim of having submitted the aforesaid documents on being called to the police station on 15/ 16117.06.2025 and as the respondent authorities did not acknowledge the receipt, thereby the petitioner having sent the same by registered post on

18.06.2025 and the said registered post having been delivered to the 3'd responde nt on L9.06.2025, this Court is of the view that the respondent authority ought to have examined the said documents furnished by the petitioner and if any, further information was required to be furnished or obtained, the respondent authorities ought to have issued further notice specifying the details/ information that the authority requires the petitioner to furnish. \ 4

10. Admittedly no such notice has been issr cd calling upon the petitioner to furnish any further informatir n wh:ch tl-re 3.d responcient authority intends the petitioner to p-ovicle. Further, it is also to be noted that since the petitioner i.j ltot arrayed as accused in connection with the aforesaid crime . r:gistered try the 3.,r respondent authority, calling the petitioner rn a claily basis to the 3.d police station t,ho is not even arraye I as a.ccused in the afor esaid crime would clearly amount to I hc rirsponclent authorities intcrfering with the life and liberty c,J the Detitioner, as the person requiring to present himsclf beforc the respondent authorities or-r a daily basis without any crime trerng registered against thcm or being arrayed as accused in ar.ry crtme would result in the said person requiring [o arrangt his aflair s by leaving a ll I-rLs work. I1. Though rt is contended on behalf of the rcspondcnt that since th,: call data report obtained by them slrowecl that the accused in Crime No.34g of 2024 were consisrcntly in [ouch with the petitioner and as such the authorities are requirt:d to investigate into the involvement of the petitioner . the afore.said crime, it is to be noted that if the respondent authorities wanted to investigate into the involvement of the :tetitioner, the respondent zruthorities should have taken actior r on their own ,., 5 by conducting investigation to ascertain as to the invorvement of the petitioner in the commission of the aforesaid crime, but not by calling the petitioner to police station since the same would not result in the authorities ascertaining the involvement or otherwise of the petitioner in commission of the aforesaid crime.

12. Since, it is now stated before this Court that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in connection with Crime No.34g ol 2024 and being only issued with notice under Section 94ll|g of BNSS which is issued to witness in the crime, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are [o be directed not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner without following due process of law.

13. Subject to the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SE N OFFICER To The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. iire bommissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad' The Station House Officer, Adibatla Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Telangana. i*o CCs to GP FbR HO-ME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] oire cc to sRl CHALLA SRINIVAS' Advocate [oPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 J 4 5 o SA PVL YL- \ rdt S TA I,]:\" o^a + ( C: (_) \, 1E iEP U6 \ I'l, ,ll HIGH COURT DATED:2510612025 ORDER WP.No.17662 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. ...{"} k-,