Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 24466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J
Gollapalli Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 17485/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kochiri Raja Shekar
For the Respondents: GP for Home
Police authorities cannot summon individuals to the police station for questioning or enquiry without a valid legal cause, as such actions may violate the personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution.
Headnote:The petitioners approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the police were calling them to the station and visiting their home without due process of law, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and provisions of the BNS. The petitioners stated that while the first petitioner was involved in criminal cases and released on bail, and the second petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction, the police were interfering in their personal liberty without legal cause. The primary issue was whether the police action of summoning the petitioners for preliminary enquiry without a formal legal cause constituted harassment and a violation of constitutional rights. The Court observed the submissions of the Assistant Government Pleader that the summons were based on a complaint for preliminary enquiry, but noted the petitioners' grievances regarding harassment. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent/police not to call the petitioners to the police station, without any legal cause.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for writ of mandamus against police interference with personal liberty. (Para 1) |
| 2. contention regarding police summons without legal cause versus preliminary enquiry. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. direction prohibiting police from summoning citizens without legal cause. (Para 5 , 6) |
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent and his police personnel in calling the petitioners to the police station and visiting the petitioners house and interfering with their personal life and liberty, without following the due process of law as illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the BNS and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioners by calling them to the police station and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 3rd respondent not to call the petitioners to the police station without issuing any notice, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 17485 of 2026
The Court made the following Order:
Instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
“.... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 3rd respondent and his police personnel in calling the petitioners to the police station and visiting the petitioners house and interfering with their personal life and liberty, without following the due process of law as illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the BNS and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to harass the petitioners by calling them to the police station and pass such other order or orders …”.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that the petitioner No.1 has implicated in two criminal cases wherein he was released on bail, by due process of law. He submits that petitioner No.2 who is none other than the wife of petitioner No.1 filed OS No.448 of 2024 on the file of the Court the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli arraying R.Venkata Rao and three others as defendants, seeking permanent injunction in respect of the subject property. He further contends respondent/Police are calling the petitioners to the police station, without therebeing any legal cause.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submits that basing on the complaint of one Mandava Srinivasa Rao of Gandluru Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District, the police called the petitioners only for the purpose of preliminary enquiry. Except that, they are not harassing the petitioners, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent/police not to call the petitioners to the police station, without any legal cause. No costs.
6. Needless to state that any retraction to the above direction will be viewed seriously.
Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
