Allowed

V.Balaramulu, v. The Station House officer

Telangana HC20 Dec 2004WP/23532/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 to stop police harassment involving alleged land disputes without a formal case. The Court cited the principle that police cannot resolve civil disputes and ordered the Station House Officer not to require the petitioner or family to attend the police station absent a specific complaint and case registration.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent (Police) not to require the petitioner or his family members to attend the police station or interfere with his rights except where a specific complaint is received and a c

V.Balaramulu, Vs The Station House officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 23532 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.Balaramulu, S/o.V.Sathaiah, R/o.H.No.B-926, Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally,

¶9

Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Station House officer, Miyapur police Station,

¶13

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

2 Mr.Syed Sharfuddin, s/o.Syed Anwar Hussain,

¶15

R/o.H.No.2-1/1, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

3 Mr.Mohammed Khaja, S/o.Mohammed Pasha, R/o.H.No.9-11-87, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of the like nature: a) Declaring that the action of the 1st Respondent in harassing the petitioner by frequently calling and detaining him in police station and forcing the petitioner to execute ante-dated agreement of sale in favour of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and thereby interfering with the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner at the behest of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, un-constitutional and also without jurisdiction. b) Direct the 1st Respondent not to harass the petitioner and his family members by interfering with the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner, and to pass such other order or further orders.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.AJAY REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

¶22

O R D E R:

¶23

The petitioner alleges that the first respondent is calling him to the police station and detaining for hours together, at the instance of respondents 2 and 3, without there being any specific complaint and without registering any case. He seeks appropriate directions to the first respondent not to harass him, or otherwise interfere with his rights.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home.

¶25

The petitioner had made a detailed reference to the nature of disputes between himself and the respondents 2 and 3 in relation to certain land. He alleges that the respondents 2 and 3 tried to pressurize him to execute certain documents, and when he did not yield to the same, they have approached the first respondent, who is said to be harassing the petitioner.

¶26

The police are vested with the power to investigate into any complaints received by them and to take further steps after registering the case. Under no circumstances, they can undertake resolution of civil disputes. In the absence of any specific complaint and without registration of any case, they cannot indiscriminately require an individual to attend the police station.

¶27

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the first respondent shall not require the petitioner and his family members to attend the police station, or otherwise interfere with his rights, except where a specific complaint is received by him and a case is registered under the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

20^th December, 2004

¶29

Note: Operative portion by wire

at party’s cost.

(B/o)

pan

1 The Station House officer, Miyapur police Station, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Home, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 3 Two C.D.copies

V.Balaramulu, v. The Station House officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Balaramulu, v. The Station House officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Aruna W/o Prasad Vs The RevenueDivisional Officer

Sri.K.Ashok Vs a.P.Transco

Sri Vanka Janardhan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Iilineni Rajeswar Rao, Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Ramavath Bali Bai Vs The District Collector

Guda Rajaiah Vs The Superintendent of Police