Dismissed

Mohd. Abdul Ghani Quraishi v. The Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC16 Mar 2012WP/20104/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions under Article 226 declaring police inaction illegal, restoring possession of a demolished Malgi, and recovering stolen cash. The Court held these were civil disputes between tenant and landlord, findings on police inaction were false, and the remedy lay in the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed, petitioner advised to approach competent civil court for redressal.

Mohd. Abdul Ghani Quraishi Vs The Commissioner of Police — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20104 of 2011

¶3

Date : 16.03.2012

¶4

Between :

¶5

Mohd. Abdul Ghani Quraishi.

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20104 of 2011

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents.

¶13

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of respondents on the petitioner’s complaint, dated 07.04.2011, lodged before the 4^th respondent, as illegal, and to restore the physical possession of the Malgi bearing No.18-10-1/D1, situated at Chandrayanagutta, Barkas, Hyderabad and also to recover Rs.50,000/- cash, which was stolen from the Malgi of the petitioner.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that he is the tenant of the Malgi bearing No.18-10-1/D1, situated at Chandrayanagutta, Barkas, owned by the 5^th respondent. It is the allegation of the petitioner that when respondents 1 and 2 are removing encroachments infront of the said Malgi, the 5^th respondent has illegally demolished the Malgi and also stolen the cash of Rs.50,000/-, which was lying therein. It is stated that in this connection, he lodged a complaint before the Police on 07.04.2011 seeking restoration of possession of the Malgi and also to inquire about the stolen cash of Rs.50,000/-, but no action is taken on such complaint. Counter affidavit is filed by the Inspector of Police,

¶15

Chandrayanagutta Police Station. In the counter, while referring to the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that on receipt of complaint from the petitioner, an entry was made in the General Diary and that the inquiries made in this matter revealed that the allegation of petitioner regarding stealing of cash of Rs.50,000/- was found to be false. It is further stated that with regard to the allegations made against respondent No.5, the petitioner has repeatedly requested the respondents to restore the possession of Malgi, but he was advised to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of said grievance. It is stated that after preliminary inquiry, as the contents of the complaint are found to be false, no crime is registered.

¶16

Even according to the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner, the Malgi was demolished by respondent No.5, but not by the official respondents. As much as it is stated that in the presence of the officials, the 5^th respondent along with his aided persons has demolished the Malgi, it is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. If the Malgi of the petitioner is illegally demolished by the 5^th respondent, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court either for damages or for recovery of possession, but he cannot seek any relief by making a complaint before the Police. Even in the counter filed by the Police, it is stated that after receipt of complaint from the petitioner, entries

¶17

were made in the General Diary and as the preliminary inquiries revealed that the allegations are false, no crime is registered. If the petitioner still feels that a cognizable offence is committed by respondent No.5, it is open for him to avail the remedies available under Cr.P.C., including the one of filing a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before competent Court, but he cannot seek any directions as prayed for in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is having any grievance, it is open for him to avail the remedies available under law. No order as to costs.

¶19

___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶20

16^th March 2012 ajr

Mohd. Abdul Ghani Quraishi v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Abdul Ghani Quraishi v. The Commissioner of Police

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

Smt. Jasthi Aruna, Vs The Revenue Divisonal officer

Kothapalli Srihari Raju Vs The Commissioner of Police

Shaik Younus Vs Station House Officer, P.S., Narsapur, Medak District

Smt.Mallidi Ashwini Vs The Government of Ap., rep by its Principal Secretary

M/s.P.Anil Kumar, Vs The Manager

K.Santosh , K.Santosh Goud, Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited