SATTARSETTI NIRMALA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

(2.) According to first petitioner, second petitioner is her daughter and her marriage was performed in the year 2017 with a person by name Shivakumar. Both of them lived happily for about four months. But thereafter, husband of the second petitioner developed illegal intimacy with another woman by name Jyothi, who is the daughter of sixth respondent in the writ petition and were living under one roof in Ghatkesar. Mr.Shivakumar started harassing the second petitioner. In a panchayat held by the elders, there was understanding that Shivakumar would lead marital life with the second petitioner by leaving the daughter of sixth respondent. However, the illegal relationship of husband of second petitioner and daughter of sixth respondent continued. The second petitioner filed a complaint with the Ghatkesar Police. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.345 of 2019 was registered under Sections 498-A and 497 IPC. At that stage, sixth respondent and his daughter approached the petitioners and requested to withdraw the case. The daughter of the sixth respondent gave an assurance in front of the police that she would not interfere in marital life of the second petitioner. In believing the said settlement, petitioners did not pursue the complaint. However, the daughter of the sixth respondent continued to have illegal relationship with the husband of the second petitioner. In collusion with the fifth respondent, sixth respondent and his daughter lodged a complaint alleging that petitioners abused them in filthy language and on caste lines. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.252 of 2020 was registered in Adbullapurmet Police Station under Section 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act, 1989). Petitioners now allege that taking advantage of registration of crime, sixth respondent and his daughter threatened the petitioners and is forcing the second petitioner to give divorce to her husband. In this writ petition, petitioners contend that Police are harassing and they are not following the procedure as required by law and prays to direct the fourth respondent to follow the procedure directed to be followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , 2014 8 SCC 273.

(3.) On the issue of the scope of power of police to conduct investigation, arrest of accused, grant of bail, and the role of Constitutional Courts in such matters was extensively considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in state of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp1 SCC 335. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: