Bommavaram Sushma v. The State Of Telangana
[ 3486 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY Between:
Bommavaram Sushma, Wo Pavan, Age 31 Years Occ House wife, R/o. flat No. 402, Rangineni's happy homes, Srini Gite No.1, Hitensen Road, petbasheerabad, Hyderabad,Telanagana-5000 1 0.
AND ...PET|T|ONER
1. The state ollg]lrglna, Rep !v its principar secretary, Home Department, TS Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Saidbad, Hyderabad. 2' The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
3. The Economic offences wing-1 at cyberabad, Rep by its Assistant commissioner of police, cybeiabad Police commission"rJt", Gachibowli, HYderabad ...RES'.NDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.3 in issuing notice dated 14.05.2026 under sections g4 of BNSS, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.3 not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner in any manner by setting aside the impugned notice dated 14.05.2026 issued pertaining to the cr.No.4412026 dated 29.04.2026, U/s 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), rtw 61(2) ot BNS on the file of (PS EOW Cyberabad).
l.A. 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 Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.3 not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner in any manner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. JALAPALLI MADHAVI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAIUAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17O9O of 2O25 Datez o,4.o,6.2o126 Between:
Bommavaram Sushma .... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretar5r, Home Department, TS Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad & two others Respondents
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration of the action of the respondents, more particularly, the respondent No.3 in issuing notice dated L4.O5.2O26 under Section 94 of BNSS, as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently to direct the respondents, more particularly, the Respondent No.S not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner in any manner by setting aside the impugned notice dated L4.O5.2O26 issued pertaining to the Cr.No.44l2O26 dated 29.04.2026 U/s 318(4), 316(2),338, 336(3), 340(2) rlw 6l(2) of BNS on the fiIe of
2- (Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Cyberabad), and to pass such other order or orders I. FACTS IN BRIEF:
2.
The case of the petitioner is that the complainant lodged a report alleging that Papa Rao Duryala and Attepally Rama Prabhu fraudulently induced the company to invest in a land transaction relating to Ac.4-O0 guntas in Sy.No.66/2, Raidurg Nakhlasa Village, Ranga Reddy Di'strict, by representing that they had valid rights and title over the property. Relying on such representations, the complainant entered into an MoU dated O7.L2.2O23 and paid an advance of Rs.2O Crores towards the agreed sale consideration. It is alleged that the accused suppressed material facts, relied on forged and fabricated documents, and failed to execute the sale deed or furnish valid title documents after receiving the amount, thereby cheated the complainant and caused wrongful loss. Based on the complaint, Crime No.4412026 was registered by EOW Police Station, Cyberabad, and investigation was taken up. 3.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that she is neither connected with nor concerned with the subject crime. It is further alleged that the respondent authorities pressurised her to appear before the Police Station and give statements against Dugrala Papa Rao for the purpose of filing a charge sheet. The petitioner
-3contends that, on 20.05.2026, under coercion and und.ue influence, the police officials forcibly obtained her signatures on statements prepared by them according to their own version and against her will. It is also alleged that the officials of Respondent No.3 obtained her signatures on blank papers without her free consent.
4Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Dugrala Papa Rao used to borrow money from the petitioner and regularly paid interest thereon. Apart from such financial transactions, the petitioner had no other relationship with him. However, the respondent authorities allegedly harassed the petitioner by compelling her to visit the police station and give statements against Dugrala Papa Rao. It is further contended that, by exerting undue influence, the police officials forcibly obtained her signatures on statements prepared by them and also on blank papers without her free will and consent.
6.
Learned counsel further submits that the competent court, while granting anticipatory bail to the said Dugrala papa Rao, q\r,
-4observed that the de facto complainant had converted a civil dispute into a criminal case. Despite such observations, the respondent authorities are allegedly threatening the petitioner with dire consequences, including the possibility of implicating her in false cases. It is argued that such actions on the part of Respondent No.3 are wholly unwarranted, as the petitioner has no nexus whatsoever with the allegations in the said crime. III.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS:
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the impugned notice issued under Section 94 of the BNSS was served upon the petitioner solely for the purpose of securing her bank account records and connected documents necessary to trace the source, movement and utilization of the funds involved in the transaction. 8.
It is further contended that the petitioner herself, in her affidavit, admits about furnishing of her bank details and having received funds from M/s. Vasavi Slryscrapers LLP in November, 2023. Such admission, according to the respondents, establishes that the petitioner is a material witness whose records are indispensable for a fair and effective investigation. Therefore issuance of the notice under section 94 of the BNSS, in any ,''
-5Manner, would, not amount to interfering with the personal life and liberty of the Petitioner.
g.
The whole grievance of the petitioner is confined to the alleged interference of the police authorities without following the procedure envisaged under law and also allegedly threatening and interfering with the petitioner's life and liberty without following due process of law.
V. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the alleged interference by the police authorities during the course of investigation' It is not in dispute that Crime No.44/ 2026 has been registered and that the investigation into the said crime is in progress. The material placed before this court also d.iscl0ses that the notice issued under Section 94 of the BNSS was for the purpose of securing documents and information, which are considered relevant by the Investigating Agency for conducting a fair and effective investigation. \
-61 1. It is a settled principle of law that the police authorities are empowered to conduct investigation into cognizable offences and collect material relevant pertaining to the crime. At the same time, such investigation must be carried out strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law and without causing unnecessary harassment to any person. Mere issuance of a notice under Section 94 of the BNSS, for production of documents required for the purpose of investigation, cannot be said to be illegal or violative of the petitioner's Fundamental Rights.
12. In the absence of any material demonstrating abuse of the process of law or unlawful action on the part of the investigating agency, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation, at this stage. However, the respondent police authorities are bound to act strictly in accordance with law and shall not subject the petitioner to any coercive measures, except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the BNSS and other applicable laws.
VI. RESULT:
13. Accordingly, this writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to conduct the investigation into Crime No.44/2o26, strictly in accordance with law and without causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. The petitioner shall ..,1 ,.,
-7cooperate with the investigation and furnish relevant information and documents, as may be lawfully required by the Investigating Officer. It is made clear that the respondent authorities shall not interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioner, except by following due process of law.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
so/-c. DEEPT ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To
1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.
2. The Director General of Police, Telangana Telangana State.
BRKR Bhavan, ikapool, Hyderabad, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing-1 at Cyberabad, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. One CC to Ms. JALAPALLI MADHAVI REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies PSK.
BS
VACATION COURT HIGH COURT DATED: 0410612026 { S-I ATE oA t)oo 09 J\]N tntt c,l ,!
o t u,:s,
ORDER
WP.No.17090 ol 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.
b \ a"6'