Here's a straightforward look at the recent court decision involving Madamsetti Manjula, who wanted to stop the legal actions against her related to certain alleged offenses.
Madamsetti Manjula, a homemaker from Wanaparthy District, Telangana, filed a request in court. She wanted to stop the legal actions against her in Crime No.44 of 2025. The charges involved breaking rules under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Essential Commodities Act (ECA).
During the hearing, Manjula's lawyer, Sri Gujjula Madhusudan, argued to stop the case. However, he also asked for instructions for the police to continue their investigation by giving a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, who was in charge of the case, looked at the arguments and the evidence. The alleged offenses against Manjula could result in a punishment of less than seven years. Therefore, the court did not get into the details of the case but told Manjula to meet with the Investigating Officer by October 17, 2025.
The request was concluded with specific instructions. Manjula is required to help with the investigation by providing necessary documents and information. The Investigating Officer must finish the investigation according to the law and the rules from a previous Supreme Court case, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
The court's decision means that while the legal actions weren't stopped, there is a clear path forward for the investigation. Manjula must follow the court's directions and cooperate fully with the authorities.
This case highlights the steps involved in legal investigations and the importance of following established rules.
