SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 57860

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
Gutthi Satish Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 9879/2025



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.9879 of 2025

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 3rd respondent authority is calling the petitioner to the police station at the behest of the 4th respondent and demanding to settle the case which has been registered, vide Crime No.233 of 2025 dt.19.02.2025, without issuing any notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, which action of the respondents-authorities, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

3. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the aforesaid crime has been registered on being referred by the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar, in a private complaint made by the 4th respondent herein.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that on the authorities registering the aforesaid complaint referred to it by the Court, on the authorities trying to serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the petitioner is refusing to accept the same, though he had visited the police station, pursuant to the call made by the respondents-

authorities to come and receive the same.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that since, the petitioner is refusing to accept the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the authorities would take steps to effect the service of the same in the manner known to law and thereafter, conduct investigation into the aforesaid crime registered based on the material available.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondents-authorities intend to serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the petitioner will accept the same today itself.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

8. Having regard to the submissions made as above, and taking note of the fact that the respondents claim to have taken steps to serve notice expressing his readiness to accept the same, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to serve notice under refusing to accept the same, the authorities shall take further action to serve the aforesaid notice in the manner known to law and thereafter, conduct investigation into the aforesaid crime registered and submit a report to the concerned Court for taking further action in the matter.

9. Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:02.04.2025 Note:

Furnish CC by today.

(B/o) GJ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top