Disposed

Sri C.Ravindra Kumar (Ravinder) v. SHO S.R.Nagar Ps Hyd and 5 Others

Telangana HC19 Dec 2011WP/6616/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition alleging illegal entry, nuisance, and manhandling by the police. Relying on an uncontradicted counter-affidavit denying the allegations, the Court granted a general direction against future interference without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law.

Sri C.Ravindra Kumar (Ravinder) Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 6616 OF 2001

¶3

Dated: 19.12.2011

¶4

Between : Sri C.Ravindra Kumar … Petitioner And The SHO., Sanjeevareddy Nagar Police Station and 5 others

¶5

… Respondents

¶6

The Court made the following:-

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 6616 OF 2001

¶8

O R D E R:

¶9

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the alleged action of the respondents in illegally entering into the house of the petitioner and creating nuisance and detaining the brother of the petitioner in the police station and manhandling the petitioner’s father.

¶10

This Court by order dated 10.04.2001 directed the 4^th respondent- Commissioner of Police to file a counter affidavit by 11.06.2001. In the meanwhile, on the basis of the letter dated 09.04.2001 addressed by the petitioner requesting the Hon’ble Chief Justice to cause an enquiry into the highhanded action of the respondents and to provide protection, the Hon’ble Chief Justice directed to treat the matter as taken up writ petition to be heard by the single Bench.

¶11

Thereafter, the Commissioner of Police filed counter affidavit dated 10.05.2001 denying the allegations made by the writ petitioner. So far as the allegations made in the petitioner’s letter dated 09.04.2001, it is stated as under:

¶12

“I submit I have gone through the letter dated 09.04.2001 addressed by the petitioner to the Hon’ble Chief Justice. I respectfully submit my enquiries revealed that all the allegations made by the petitioner against Mr.Prasanna Kumar, Sub-Inspector of S.R.Nagr PS in his letter are totally incorrect and false. Since the police have not entered into the premises of the petitioner, the question of creating nuisance, abusing them in filthy language and catching hold of his sisters hand does not arise. Further, the police never arrested the brother of the petitionr C.Nagaraj and his father C.Narayana at their house. Mr.Nagaraj the brother of the petitioner and Mr.C.Narayana father of the petitioner were taken into custody when they were obstructing the police from performing their duties. Therefore the contents of the petitioner that the Sub-Inspector had acted in a rude, rash manner and man-handled his father are in-correct and false.

¶13

I submit after the above cases were booked against the

¶14

brothers of the petitioner and his father. The petitioner for the sake of present taken up Petition has not owned up his own younger brother Mr.Vijay Kumar. Mr.Vijay Kumar is no other than the younger brother of the petitioner. The enquiries further revealed that the petitioner, his father Narayana and the other brothers i.e., Mr.Vijay Kumar, Shanker, Nagraj are all residing in the same house. My enquiries revealed that the police have not taken any illegal action as stated by the petitioner.”

¶15

Having regard to the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent-Commissioner of Police which stood uncontraverted, there is no need to keep the writ petition pending any longer.

¶16

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law. No costs.

¶17

___________

¶18

G. ROHINI, J Date: 19.12.2011 Ivd

Sri C.Ravindra Kumar (Ravinder) v. SHO S.R.Nagar Ps Hyd and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C.Ravindra Kumar (Ravinder) v. SHO S.R.Nagar Ps Hyd and 5 Others

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

R. Shankar, Vs Smt. v. Swarajyalakshmi

Smt. Jasti Durga Bhavani, Vs D.Yellaiah (died Per Lrs. D.3 to 5)

Dr. Pariti Suryanarayana Murthy, Vs Smt. v. Swarajyalakshmi

Ncc-Ivrcl-Smc (Jv), a Joint Venture entity of Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastrucutre Corporation Ltd.

N. Bayyapu Reddy Vs M. Surya Prakash

K. Sudhaker Reddy Vs M/s. Sudha Constructions