Disposed

Mohammed Burhanuddin v. Commissioneer of Police Hdyerabad

Telangana HC27 Aug 2009CC/1684/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a contempt case where the petitioner alleged willful disobedience of an order not to interfere in a civil matter. Relying on the 4th respondent's counter affidavit denying harassment, the court found no further orders necessary. The case was closed with a direction for respondents not to interfere in the civil dispute.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; respondents directed not to interfere in the civil disputes.

Mohammed Burhanuddin Vs Commissioneer of Police Hdyerabad — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE NO : 1684 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohammed Burhanuddin

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and three others.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶13

CONTEMPT CASE No.1684 of 2008

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in not implementing the order made in W.P.M.P.No.14864 of 2008 in W.P.No.11494 of 2008, dated 28-05-2008, whereby the respondents were directed not to interfere with the civil matter and not to harass the petitioner by doing illegal acts such as disturbing privacy of the petitioner and by visiting his house bearing Municipal No.18-13-8-8/J/B/14/1/A, situated at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad.

¶16

2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the 4^th respondent never harassed the petitioner such as disturbing the privacy of the petitioner. The petitioner bore grudge against the respondents as the

¶17

4^th respondent registered a

¶18

suo-motu case in Crime No.153 of 2008 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and submitted a report to the Special Executive Officer to issue proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. He never asked the petitioner to settle the matter with third parties nor asked him to withdraw the suit filed by him at any point of time. The petitioner unnecessarily involved the 4^th respondent into the civil disputes. The respondents never disobeyed the orders of the Hon’ble Court at any point of time.

¶19

3. In view of the specific stand taken by the 4^th respondent in the counter affidavit that he never harassed the petitioner nor disturbed his privacy at any point of time, no further orders are necessary in this contempt case.

¶20

4. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall not interfere into the civil disputes arose between the parties, except as required under the Law.

¶21

_________________ 27^th August 2009

¶22

KVR

Mohammed Burhanuddin v. Commissioneer of Police Hdyerabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Burhanuddin v. Commissioneer of Police Hdyerabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alladi Srinivas Vs The District Collector

Rayana Chinna Rao Vs The Tahsildhar, Visakhapatnam Mandal

M.Ramesh Vs Sri Vijayender Reddy

B.v.Narendra Chowdary Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Smt. L. Vijayalakshmi, Vs The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar

J.Ramu Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary