Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16702 (AP)

CHUWATE SWATHI v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/3759/2026 · 2026-02-16

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010065762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3759/2026 Between: 1.CHUWATE SWATHI, W/O. CHUWATE NITHIN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 108 MS9 DEVI ENCLAVE, NEAR SBI CIRCLE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI - 522237. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI. GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522302. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518001. 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KURNOOL II TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT - 518001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PATHI SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the illegal detention coercive action and abduction of the petitioner after sunset and interfering with life and liberty of the petitioner to calling to the Police Station frequently without assigning any reasons without registering any crime or complaint against her by using their official powers without any authority or jurisdiction in violation to the section 435 of BNSS Act where the 4th respondent had committed illegal criminal trespass outraging the modesty of a women unlawful search and seized of private digital data of the petitioner without order from the any of Honble Court which as illegal arbitrary highhanded cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the Respondents not to call or summon the Petitioner or his family members to the Police Station or before the police authorities except by strictly following due process of law and pass…” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Pathi Siva Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Petitioner, being a woman, was unlawfully detained in the police station even after sunset and was subjected to harassment at the hands of the police authorities. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that a criminal case in Cr.No.13/2026 has been registered against the Petitioner’s husband and the same is under investigation. He submits that the Petitioner was summoned only for the purpose of investigation, that she was neither harassed nor detained beyond sunset, and that the husband of the Petitioner has already instituted Crl.P.No.804/2026 seeking quashment of the FIR. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said proceedings, this Court had directed the concerned police to issue notice under Section 35(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3 5. This Court is of the considered view that unless the Petitioner is arrayed as an accused in any crime, she, being a woman, cannot be summoned to the Police Station and kept therein for prolonged hours, particularly beyond sunset. If the Investigating Officer considers the Petitioner to be a material witness, her statement, if required, must be recorded at her residence, in accordance with law. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent No.4 not to summon the Petitioner to the Police Station unnecessarily or without any valid basis, and not to detain her in the Police Station beyond sunset hours. It is, however, clarified that in the event the investigation reveals the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged offence, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed against her strictly in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.02.2026 VTS