Lekkala Gopi Krishna v. consequently set aside the same

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.VIDYA SAGAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI ARAGTIURAM Counsel for the Reqpondents: SRI R.I-AXMIKANTH REI)DY, AGP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO: 23289 OF 2A25 Between: 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. AND

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

2. The Special Ekecutive Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajendra Nagar Zone, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Narsingi PS, Cyberabacl ...PETITIONER ...RESPQNDENTS 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$signing an / reasons or setting forth any substance of information received as being illegal arbitrary, in violation of provisions of BNSS and in violation of Art 21 of the r)onstitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in th€ affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings vide MC.No.5512025 dated 01.08.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent u/s 130 BNSS directing the Petitioner to attend inquiry. Counsel for thb Petitioner: SRI G.MDYA SAGAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI A.RAGHURAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO: 23297 OF 2025 Between: Lekkala Purushottam Naidu, S/o. L. Padmanabha Naidu, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.3$/9, Narsingi Heights, Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONER AND

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

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

3. The Station House Officer, Narsingi PS, Manchirewla, Gandipet, Narsingi' Telangana-500O89 ...RESPONDENTS 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 attend inquiry and to take necessary preventive measures by binding over the Petitioner for keeping peace and good behavior without assigning any 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 tte Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.SAI PRASEN Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI R.L.AXMIKANTH REl)DY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: COMMON ORDI:R TIIE HON'BLE SRTJUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN WRITPETITIO NNos.23278 73289 and 23291 oI2O25 COMMO NORI)ER: Heard Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representmg Mr.A.Raghuram, leamed counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos'23278 an'l 23289 of 2025' Mr'G'Sai Prasen, learned counsel for the petitioner in W'P'No'23291 of 2025andMr.R.LaxmikanthReddy'leamedAssistant Govemment Pleader for Home'

2. These three writ petitions are fited challenging the 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 Commissioner of Police' Rajendranagar Zone' Cyberabad, under Section 130 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit4 2023 (for short, 'BNSS '2023')'

3. 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 dated 19.07.2025 of respondent No'3 - Station House OfFrcer' 2 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.

4. Petitioner in W.p.No.2329l of ZO25 ie., Mr.Lekkala Purushotam Naidu is the Managing partner of ir4ls.Vision 3 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 (previously Chevella Mandal)' Rangareddy District, Telangana' It appears that there are disputes among the partners of the said firm' The said firm represented by its Managing Partner i'e'' Mr'Lekkala Purushotam Naidu, petitioner in W'P'No'23291 of 2025has Frted a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vide C'O'P'No'45 of 2024 against is partner and vide order dated 28'Ol'z}zs,leamed Commercial Court allowed the said application'

5. Mr.E.Damodar, Retired IPS Offrcer has lodged a complaint dated 11.06-2025 with respondent No'3 - Police Station alleging theft of Prefabricated Servant Quarter' criminal trespass and damaging compound wall of plot ln Sy.No.369/Part of admeasuring l73O square Yards 4 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

6. 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.

7. 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. 5

8. It is also relevant to note that the said IWs'NockeI India Private Limited represented by Mr Lekkala Purushotam Naidu has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr'P'C' against Mrs.E.Shanti and her husband Mr'E'Darnodar alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, etc'

9. As discussed supra, referring the report dated lg.OT.2)25andtheaforesaidfourcrimes,respondentNo'2has issued impugned orders all dated 01'08'2025 stating that the petitioners have not only committing criminal activities' but also tikely to commit wrongful act that may occasion a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility in the limits of Rajendranagar Zone, Cyberabad' There is dire necessity to take preventive measures by binding over the petitionen for keeping peace and good behavior etc'

10. Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.2 has passed the aforesaid order dated 0l'08'2025 without foltowing the due procedure laid down under BNSS' 2023' 6 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. 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.

12. 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 committing wrongfut acts 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 05'08'2025 at ll'00 Hours for inquiry. Petitioners instead of attending before respondent No.2 for the said inquiry, filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 01'08'2025'

13. tn the light of the said submissions' it is relevant to note that Chapter IX of BNSS deals with security for keeping the peace and for good behavior and Sections 130 and 131 of BNSS, 2O23 dealswith order to be made' it is relevant and it is extracted below: *130. Order to be made - When a Magistrate acting under section 126, section 127' section 128 Or section 129, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section' he shatl in writing, setting forth the make an order l I I I ! i 1 I : 1 : B t-' 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.

131. 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.,,

14. 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.

15. 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 9 petitioners to respondent No'2 to furnish copy of the same' Therefore, petitioners have to submit a representation seeking copy of the said report dated 19'01 '2025' Without seeking the said report, petitioners can't allege that respondent No'2 has not enclosed copy of the report dated 19'07 '2025'

16. As discussed supra' ot the basis of the report dated lg.O7.ZO25 of respondent No'3, respondent No'2 has issued the impugned order dated 0l'08'2025' Admittedly' petitioners are accused in the aforesaid four (4) crimes mentioned in the impugned order. In Crime Nos'904 and ll40 of 2025' investigation is still Pending' L7. As discussed suPrd, on the comPlaint todged bY Mr.E.Damodar, Retired I'G' of Police, alleging that the petitioners tried to grab the property belongs to his wife' Respondent No.3 has registered the aforesaid two crimes' Instead of his wift lodging complaint' lvtr'E'Damodar has lodged a complaint with respondent No'3' Without considering the said aspect, respondent No'3 has registered the aforesaid 10 two crimes against the petitioners. There I s no explanation from respondent No.3 on the said aspect.

18. 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 11 regard to the land admeasuring Acs'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'rated at Sultanpalty Village and Grampanchaya! Shamshabad Mandal (previousty Chevella Mandal), Rangareddy District' Telangana.

19. There is no consideration of the said aspects by respondent M'2 in the impugned orders of respondent No'2' Even then, respondent No'2 directed the petitioners to attend the enquiry in-persons on 05'08'2025 stating that he is fully satisfied that there is any apprehension of committing illegal and wrongful acts in the said area by the petitioners' Respondent No-2 did not follow the procedure laid down under Chapter tX of BNSS' Respondent No'2 can't direct the petitioners to attend enquiry 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 'l t2 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 (' 13 Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, shall supervise the enqulry.

22. In the light of the said submissions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of setting aside the impugued orders in M.C.No.54, 55 and 56 of 2024, all dated 01.08.2025 of 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 report dated

19.01 .2025, petitioners shall submit explanations to respondent No.2 by enclosing all the relevant documents. On receipt of such explanations along with documents, respondent No.2 shatl consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. However, petitioners shall cooperation with /1ii t4 respondenl No.2 in concluding the enquiry. Rerpondent No.2 shall not insist the petitioners to attend in-person for the enquiry. However, he shall complete the enq lry and pass orders in terms of Chapter IX of BNSS within cne (l) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous applications, if any pendir g, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPY//

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

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. 3. The Special Executive Magistrate cum Deputy Cc mmissioner of Police, Rajendra Nagar Zone, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 4. The Station House Ofricer, Narsingi PS Cyberabad. 5. The Statior House Officer, Manchirevula, Gandipet, l', arsingi PS, Tehngana-

6. One CC to SRI G.SAI PRASEN, Advocate IOPUCJ 7. One CC to SRI A.RAGHURAM, Advoeate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Cc,pies I BSR {KS P HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 COMMON ORDER 0 7 DIT ;1t1 \r'. +.\ WP.Nos.23278,23289 and 23291 of 2)2i DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETII'IONS, WITHOUT COSTS