Article 226 | Police Cannot Summon Accused's Family Without Evidence: Andhra Pradesh HC Restrains Harassment via Writ of Mandamus

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has intervened to protect family members of accused individuals from police harassment in the absence of evidence, while permitting investigation against those named in an FIR for attempt to murder. The judgment underscores the importance of due process and procedural safeguards under criminal law, particularly when dealing with third parties not implicated in the alleged offence.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, comprising two accused individuals and three family members, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the police from harassing or summoning them without following due process. The dispute arose in the context of FIR No. 35 of 2026, registered at Mannuru UPS Police Station, Annamaya District, for the offence of attempt to murder.

Key Facts

• Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (Maramreddy Reddaiah and Maramreddy Siva) were implicated as Accused Nos. 4 and 9 in FIR No. 35 of 2026 based on a confession by other accused and CCTV footage showing Petitioner No. 1’s involvement.
• Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 (Koneru Narasimhulu, Koneru Vamsi Mohan, and Koneru Vishnuvardhan, a minor) are family members of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. No allegations or evidence were presented against them.
• The petitioners alleged that the police summoned and harassed them without registering an FIR or following mandatory procedural safeguards.

Procedural History

• FIR No. 35 of 2026 was registered for attempt to murder.
• Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were implicated based on confessions and CCTV footage.
• Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were summoned by the police despite no evidence against them.
• Writ Petition No. 7979 of 2026 was filed on 31.03.2026 seeking relief under Article 226.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

• A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ restraining Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Superintendent of Police and State House Officer) from harassing or summoning the petitioners without due process.
• Directions to the police to act strictly in accordance with law and refrain from coercive steps in the absence of an FIR or compliance with procedural safeguards.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the police could summon or harass family members of accused individuals in the absence of evidence implicating them in the alleged offence, and whether such actions violated due process of law under Article 226.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• Smt. Turaga M.K. Praneetha, counsel for the petitioners, argued that the police harassed the petitioners without following due process.
• She contended that Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 had no involvement in the offence and were being unjustly targeted.
• The petitioners had not committed any offence, and the police lacked authority to take coercive steps against them in the absence of an FIR.

For the Respondents

• Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted on written instructions that:
  • Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were implicated based on a confession by other accused and CCTV footage showing their involvement.
  • Prima facie evidence was available against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, justifying their inclusion as accused.
  • Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had an alternative remedy to approach the Sessions Judge for relief.
  • No allegations or evidence existed against Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, rendering their harassment unjustified.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the submissions and the factual matrix of the case. Key observations included:

1. Evidence Against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2:

   • The Court noted that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were implicated based on a confession by other accused and CCTV footage showing Petitioner No. 1’s involvement.
   • The Investigating Officer submitted that prima facie evidence was available against them, justifying their inclusion as accused.
   • The Court held that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had an alternative remedy under criminal procedure to seek relief from the Sessions Judge.

2. No Evidence Against Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5:

   • The Court emphasized that no allegations or evidence were presented against Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, who were family members of the accused.
   • It held that there was no justification for the police to summon or harass them.

3. Due Process and Procedural Safeguards:

   • The Court reiterated the importance of due process of law and procedural safeguards in criminal investigations.
   • It observed that coercive actions against individuals without evidence violated these principles.

"Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent police not to call or harass Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5."

The Verdict

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

• The respondent police were restrained from summoning or harassing Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, as no evidence existed against them.
• The Investigating Officer was at liberty to proceed against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with law, as they were alleged to have committed the offence of attempt to murder.
• The Investigating Officer was also permitted to proceed against Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 if any evidence emerged against them.
• No order as to costs was passed.
• Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Harassment of Family Members Is Unjustified Without Evidence

• The judgment establishes that family members of accused individuals cannot be harassed or summoned by the police in the absence of evidence implicating them in the offence.
• Practitioners can rely on this judgment to argue against coercive actions taken against third parties without legal basis.

Due Process Must Be Followed in Criminal Investigations

• The Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards under criminal law.
• Investigating agencies must ensure that coercive steps are taken only against individuals against whom prima facie evidence exists.

Alternative Remedies Must Be Exhausted

• The judgment reinforces that accused individuals must exhaust alternative remedies, such as approaching the Sessions Judge, before seeking relief under Article 226.
• This principle applies where prima facie evidence exists against the accused, justifying their inclusion in the investigation.