The High Court · 2025

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 or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 interfering into the personal life and liberty of the Petitioners pertaining to Crime No. 278 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 13 R/w 14 of POCSO Act-2012,678 of ITA Act-2008 of P. S. Toopran, Ii4edak District without following due process of law contemplated under Criminal Procedure Code, being illegal, arbitrary and u nco nstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia apart from being violative of principles of natural justice consequently set-aside the Crime No. 278 of 2025for the offences punishable under Section 13 R/w '14 of POCSO Acl-2012,678 of ITA Act-2008 of P. S. Toopran, IVedak District against the petitioners. 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 the respondent not interfere wrth Petitioners in Crime No. 278 of 2025for the offences punishable under Section 13 R/w 14 of POCSC Acl-2O12,678 of {TA Act-2008 of P. S. Toopran, N,4edak District, without followlng due process of law pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G. ESWARAIAH Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI G. ANIKEHT REDDY, l\GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER a HON'BLE SRIJUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.23574 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. G. Eswaraiah, leamed oounsel for the petitioners and Mr. G. Aniketh Reddy, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is liled to declare the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the personal life and libcrty of the petitioncr under the guise of invcstigation in Crime No.278 of 2025 of Toopran Police Station, without following due procedure laid down under law, as illegal.

3. Whereas, leamed Assistant Covemment Pleader for Home, on instructions, r.vould submit that on the conlplaint lodged by the Sub-Inspeotor of l'olice, 'l'oopran Polioc Station, the Police ol Toopran havc registcrcd a casc in Crirne No.278 of 2025 against petitioner No.1 hercin and others for the offences punishable under Section - 13 read with 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Off'ences Act,2012 and Section - 678 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. a.1a ,] 2 KL, J $' P. No 23574 o12025

4. Perusal of complaint in Crime No.278 of 2025 rvould reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioners hereur ue that they ,,vere allcgcdly creating, circulating and sharing child pomographic videos using their Inst-agrams, the details of which arc mentioned therein

5. Perusal of record would also reveal that ttrere is another crime registered by the very same police station on the complaint lodged by one Mr. Bhavani Dharmendhar, vide Crime |Jo.265 of 2025 against petitioner No.1 and others for the offences pu-rishable under Sections - 308 (4), 118 (1), 115 (2) and 352 read wirh 3 (5) ofthc BNS. Petitioner No.l herein and other accused have lled a petition under Section - 528 of the BNSS, to quash the procecdings in the said crime. Vide order d,ated, 31.07.2025, this Cotut dirccted the Investigating Officer in the said crime to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down untler thc llNSS, issue notice under Section - 35 (3) of the BNSS and also the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Biharr. This Court also directed the petitioner and other accused to appear befbre the Inves[igaling Officer on 04.08.2025. '. 1zoral s scc zz: n J KI,, J W.P No 21574 of 2025

6. It is contended by leamed counsel for the petitioncrs that in compliance with the said order, the petitioners approached the Investigating Officer in the said The Investigating Officer made the petitioners to sit in the police station from morning to evening. They have registered the aforesaid Crime No.278 of 2025 on

04.08.2025 against the pctitioncrs for the aforesaid offences. Under the guise of investigation in Crirne No.278 of 2025, respondent No.2 is harassing the petitioners. Challenging the said action of respondent No.2, the petitioners filcd the prcscnt writ petition {

7. Whereas, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the Investigating Officer in Crime No.278 of Toopran Police Station will conduct investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the BNSS and he never harassed them as alleged in the writ affidavit

8. In the light of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Olficer in Crime No.278 of 2025 pendng on the file of Toopran Police Station - respondent No.2 herein, to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the BNSS. He is directed not to harass the petitioners under the guise of enquiryi investigation in Crime Nos.278 4 KL, J \Y.P No 23574 of2025 of 2025 and 265 of 2025. In the circumstances of the,;ase. there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitibns, if ,rni., pcnding in the r.rrit petition shall stand closed. i/TRUE COPY// ABU RAR SD/. L. LAKSHMI B 7\D[PUTY REGIST /\,. : \-l 'l srcrtott oFFrcER ' :.'l j Telangana. Hyderabad.

1. The Principal secretary, Department of Home, secretariat, Saifabad. state of 2. The Station House Officer, P. S Toopran, Medak District. 3. One CC to Sri G. Eswaraiah. Advoiate tOpUCt 4. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court foi tne State of Telangana, at 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] To, TJ GJ] I I I I l HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 ORDER _ -j=:::._ \ "- rt.li \. \ /a',ni ,,,.,\. 0I StP 20?5 WP.No.23574 ot 2025 :. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o @L