N. PURUSHOTHAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the Notice dated 23 -08 -2014 issued by the Station House Officer, Nacharam Police Station, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, in accordance with and in terms of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as the Code), as bad in law.

(2.) THE petitioner also sought for a further declaration that the action of Respondents 2 to 4 in detaining him in the Police Station from 9 -30 am to 8 -30 pm on 27 -08 -2014, without any reason or substance with reference to the alleged offences mentioned in the Notice, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and that it also violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as per the enunciation of the Supreme Court in its Judgments in LALITA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH , MADHU BALA v. SURESH KUMAR AND OTHER and ARNESH KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER .

(3.) HEARD Sri D.V.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner for fairly a long time. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Police are obliged to conduct a preliminary inquiry and without conducting the same and ascertaining as to the correctness, genuineness and truth of the allegations contained in the complaint, they are not justified in registering the F.I.R. or taking up the investigation there into. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Police are now required to undertake a preliminary investigation in terms of the conclusions recorded in Para 120.6 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in LALITA KUMARIs case, cited (1) supra. It is also the case of the petitioner that Section 41 -A of the Code could not have been invoked without there being a cognizable offence committed by the petitioner and at the behest of the 5th respondent, who has a bad reputation in the society, the Police are trying to harass him. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there are civil disputes between himself and the 5th respondent and, in fact, a Division Bench of this Court entertained C.M.A.No.568 of 2013, preferred by the petitioner along with a Firm in that regard, which discloses the existence of civil disputes, and the Police are unnecessarily interfering with the civil disputes and that they are creating hassles for free enjoyment of his right to life.