Aditya Chavan v. The State of Telangana and 7 others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-17. Aditya Chavan v. The State of Telangana and 7 others. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23040 OF 2020 Betwee n: Aditya Chavan, S/o Kishore Chavan Age. 30 years Occ. Bank Employee R/o. H. No. 5-2-81182. Jambagh Road Jambagh, Nampally, Hyderabad . ,. PETITIONER AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Bldgs, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Begumpet. 4. The Circle lnspector of Po ce, Women Police Station, Begumpet 5. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Begumpet 6. Smt Jyothi lnspector of Police, Women Police Station, Begumpet. 7. Venkateshwarlu, Constable Women Police Station, Begumpet. 8. Shubhangini Gowli, W/o Aditya Chavan D/o. Athley Gowli, Age. 28 years, Occ.
Pvt employee, Rio H No: 1-11-206, Allaudin Building, Begumpet, Hyderabad ... 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 to 7 in interfering with the life and liberty of the Petitioner by asking Petitioner to attend the Police Station without following due process of law and without following the guidelines of Honourable Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, as illegal, arbitrary. capricious and violative of Article, 19,21 oI Constitution of lndia besides violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.
2 to 7 not to interfere with the life and liberty of the Petitioner without following due process of law or to pass appropriate orders. lA NO: '1 OF 2020 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 respondents NO. 2 to 7 not to interfere with the life and liberty of the Petitioner and insist to compromise the matter with the Bth respondent, without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 8:----- The Court made the following: ORDER -2 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23O4O O F 2020 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 2. According to petitioner, he married eighth respondent on 19. 05. 2019.
After the marriage, differences arose between the petitioner and eighth respondent. Petitioner now alleges that at the instance of eighth respondent, police are harassing, intimidating and threatening with dire consequences, unless petitioner complies with demands of eighth respondent. According to learned counsel for petitioner, so far, no crime is registered. Therefore, petitioner calnot be called to the police station and calnot be subjected to enquiry without registration of cnme. 3. When the matter is taken-up, learned Assistant Government Pleader informs the Court that to-day crime No. 127 of 2O2O is registered against the petitioner on the complaint lodged by eighth respondent alleging violation of Sections 49a-A, 323 and 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Since crime is already registered, police are required to investigate into the said crime.
However in the process of investigation, police are directed to follow principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Amesh Kumar rs. State of Biharr and Rajesh Sharma vs. Srale of Uttar PradestP. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. t (8)scc 27 3 2014 2 (20'18)10 scc 472 SD /-CH. VENKATESWA EG AR ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, State of Telangana' Secretariat 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department' \ Bldos. Saifabad, HYderabao Hyderabad 2 Tr''r-"]do-mmi Jsionei of Police 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Begumpet. 4. The Circle lnspector of Police, Women Police Station, Begumpet 5. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Begumpet 6. One CC to Sri Kiran Palakurthi, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies SM \ HIGH COURT DATED:17/1212020 1 i{E S14 al r4. o ( /\ {13" 23 DEC ; z 2W f, \,, ORDER * -1n^-.
\<: 2020 WP. No. 23040 of WP DISPOSING OF THE WITHOUT COSTS . rO -lU') @
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.