T.Vinod Kumar, J. - (1.)The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes Police Station, Rachakonda, in interfering with the petitioner's personal life and liberty by summoning him to the police station without there being any case and cause, as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent not to summon the petitioner to police station without following due process of law.
(2.)Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
(3.)The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions dated 19.11.2019, a copy of which is placed on record of this Court, submits that one Sri P. Balakoti Reddy, who is 4th respondent in the present writ petition, gave a complaint to the 2nd respondent herein, wherein it is stated that on 10.07.2019 the 4th respondent saw an advertisement in What-App relating to sale of bank seized vehicles and contacted the mobile number given therein on 13.07.2019. The person, who responded to the said call, introduced himself as S. Karuna Kumar (the petitioner herein), and he is having bank seized vehicles for sale and also shared some images of vehicles which are in his possession and offered the same for sale. Basing on the images shared by the said person, the 4th respondent agreed to purchase Maruthi Brezza Car, for which the petitioner quoted a price of Rs.7 lakhs and after due negotiations over phone, the final price was agreed at Rs.6.80 lakhs for sale of the said vehicle. Upon such agreement being arrived at, the 4th respondent transferred Rs.30,000/- towards advance on 27.07.2019 through Google pay account given by the petitioner. Again on 30.07.2019, the 4th respondent deposited Rs.6.50 lakhs into the account bearing No.3960101004713 maintained with Canara Bank, Old Alwal branch, which is in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner despite having received the agreed consideration did not deliver the car even after three months have passed, nor returned the amount. Thus, the 4th respondent made a complaint of cheating against the petitioner.