The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the constitutional sanctity of personal liberty by holding that police cannot summon individuals based solely on unacted-upon complaints. This judgment provides critical clarity on the limits of police authority under Article 226, reinforcing that procedural inaction nullifies the basis for coercive interaction with citizens.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jenu Venkateswar Rao, a 68-year-old resident of Bondada Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District, was summoned to the Kalla Police Station by the Station House Officer (2nd Respondent) without any formal complaint, charge, or legal basis. The petitioner, who had no prior criminal record or pending investigation against him, challenged this summons as arbitrary and violative of his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a senior citizen with no history of criminal involvement.
- A third party, Kolli Damodar Rao, filed a PGRS (Police General Register of Complaints) complaint against the petitioner.
- The PGRS complaint was registered but no formal FIR was lodged.
- The 2nd Respondent, Kalla Police Station, issued a summons to the petitioner based solely on this PGRS entry.
- The petitioner did not appear at the police station, citing lack of legal authority for the summons.
- No further inquiry, evidence collection, or investigation was initiated by the police after the PGRS registration.
- The petitioner filed this writ petition to restrain any future summons or interference.
Procedural History
- Date of PGRS Complaint: Not specified in judgment, but alleged to have been filed prior to summons.
- Date of Police Summons: Not specified, but occurred prior to filing of writ petition.
- Date of Filing Writ Petition: 2026 (exact date not stated, but petition was admitted on 07.04.2026).
- Date of Hearing: 07.04.2026.
- Date of Judgment: 07.04.2026.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, through counsel B. Chandrasekhar, argued that:
- A PGRS complaint is not a cognizable offence and does not confer police power to summon.
- Summoning a senior citizen without any active investigation or FIR is arbitrary and violates Article 21.
- There is no statutory provision permitting police to summon individuals based on PGRS entries alone.
- The summons constitutes harassment and an abuse of power.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submitted that:
- A PGRS complaint was lodged by Kolli Damodar Rao.
- The police summoned the petitioner for inquiry.
- The petitioner failed to cooperate.
- No further action was taken due to lapse of time.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of mandamus declaring the summons illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
- A direction to the 2nd Respondent not to summon the petitioner to the police station in future.
- A direction to cease all interference with his personal liberty.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether police can lawfully summon a citizen to the station based solely on an unacted-upon PGRS complaint, without any FIR, investigation, or statutory authority.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the foundational principle that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be infringed without due process. He argued that PGRS complaints are merely registry entries with no legal force, and that summoning individuals without an FIR or investigation violates the precedent set in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which mandates that arrest or coercive action must be preceded by reasonable satisfaction of necessity. He further cited K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to emphasize that state interference with liberty must be proportionate and justified.
For the Respondent
The State conceded that no formal inquiry was conducted after the PGRS complaint was lodged. It admitted that the time for inquiry had lapsed and no further steps were taken. The submission was essentially an acknowledgment that the summons was not followed by any actionable investigation, rendering its continuation unjustified.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of PGRS complaints under the Andhra Pradesh Police Regulations and the Code of Criminal Procedure. It noted that PGRS entries are administrative records for initial documentation and do not confer any power to summon, investigate, or detain. The Court emphasized that mere registration of a complaint does not create a legal obligation to summon the accused.
"Since no action has been taken by Respondent No.2 on the PGRS complaint submitted by the third party, there is no justification for Respondent No.2 to hereafter call the petitioner to the police station or otherwise interfere with his personal liberty."
The Court held that the absence of any subsequent investigation, FIR, or evidentiary basis negated any legal ground for the summons. It further observed that summoning a senior citizen without cause amounts to harassment and violates the dignity and autonomy protected under Article 21. The Court rejected the notion that non-cooperation by the petitioner could validate an unlawful summons, noting that the initial summons itself lacked legal foundation.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court held that the summons was illegal and unconstitutional. The 2nd Respondent is directed not to summon the petitioner to the police station in future on the basis of the PGRS complaint or otherwise interfere with his personal liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Summons Require Active Investigation
- Practitioners may now cite this judgment to challenge any police summons based solely on PGRS entries without an FIR or investigation.
- Any summons issued without a cognizable offence or pending inquiry is vulnerable to quashing under Article 226.
PGRS Complaints Are Not Legal Triggers
- PGRS complaints cannot be used as a proxy for formal complaint procedures under CrPC.
- Police must establish a prima facie case before initiating coercive steps.
- This judgment reinforces that administrative records cannot override constitutional rights.
Senior Citizens Are Entitled to Enhanced Protection
- Courts will view summonses against elderly citizens with heightened scrutiny.
- Harassment through repeated or baseless summonses may attract damages under Article 21 jurisprudence.
