Dismissed

Anees fatima , Fatima Begum v. The Station House Officer

Telangana HC5 Mar 2012WP/530/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to direct police authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against officers for allegedly failing to register a criminal case and facilitating the escape of a party to a civil dispute. The Court dismissed the petition holding that cases were registered, delays were not established, and police misconduct allegations were found false

What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the writ petition and held that no direction for disciplinary action would be granted as the allegations against the police were found false by an enquiry.

Anees fatima , Fatima Begum Vs The Station House… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.530 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

1 This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to direct the respondents 3 to 5 to take disciplinary action against the respondents 1 and 2 for failing to register a criminal case against the respondents 7 and 8 and intentionally allowing the 7^th respondent to escape from the country without facing trial on the complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶4

2 The petitioner herein has lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad on 13.12.2011 stating that she purchased the house property bearing D.No.5-9-42/3/1 situated at Basheerbagh by liquidating fixed deposits, which were kept on her name in the Union Bank of India, by her father. It is alleged that when she entered the house, she found that her sister i.e. 7^th respondent herein and 8^th respondent were in possession of the said house and when she questioned, they beat her and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereupon, on the complaint lodged by the petitioner a case in Cr.No.668 of 2011 was registered under Sections 448, 323 and 506 of IPC on the file of the Saifabad Police Station. The unofficial respondents herein are shown as A.7 and A.8 in the said crime.

¶5

3 In this Writ Petition it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any immediate steps on the complaint lodged by the petitioner and purposefully allowed the 7^th respondent to leave for UAE to avoid the prosecution on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that such inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 intentionally allowing the 7^th respondent to leave the country amounts to misconduct, and as such the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 to take disciplinary action against the respondents 1 and 2.

¶6

4 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad, the 3^rd respondent herein has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that prior to the filing of the complaint by the petitioner, there was a complaint dated 10.12.2011 filed by the 7^th respondent herein stating that she is the absolute and rightful owner and possessor of the house bearing D.No.5-9-42/3/1, 3 to 6, New MLA Quarters lane, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and the same was purchased by her in the year 1979 and further constructions were made in the year 1980. It is stated that the 7^th respondent has alleged in the complaint that the petitioner herein who is her younger sister, without having any right, is trying to grab the said house property by adopting illegal

¶7

and high handed methods. It is further stated that on 03.12.2011 at about 1.00 PM the petitioner herein along with four goonda elements came to the house, broke open the locks to the grills of the complainant’s house and tried to enter into her house. Thereupon, on the complaint lodged by the 7^th respondent, a case in Cr.No.661 of 2011 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of IPC on the file of the Saifabad Police Station i.e. first respondent herein. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that investigation in both the crimes is pending and necessary steps will be taken after completing investigation in the above said crimes.

¶8

5 It is further stated in the counter affidavit that prior to the filing of the Writ Petition itself, the crime was registered on the complaint of the petitioner and also on the complaint lodged by the 7^th respondent. Further reference is made stating that the petitioner has made a representation dated 10.12.2011 making certain allegations against the police officers and on receipt of such representation, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad instructed the Officer on Special Duty, Saifabad Division to conduct a detailed enquiry into the contents of the said representation filed by the petitioner and to submit report for taking further course of action. It is submitted that pursuant to the said direction issued by

¶9

the Commissioner of Police, a detailed enquiry was conducted and a report was also submitted stating that the allegations made by the petitioner in her representation dated 10.12.2011 against the 7^th respondent and the police officers are found to be false. In the counter it is also mentioned that earlier, a case was also registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.53 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 380, 448, 506, 323, 342 and 452 of IPC on the file of Bahadurpura Police Station and the petitioner herein was accused No.1 in the said case. It is further submitted that another case in Cr.No.542 of 2007 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC on the file of Hayathnagar Police Station wherein also the petitioner was arrayed as A.1, and Cr.No.120 of 2008 under Sections 363 and 201 of IPC was also registered against the petitioner on the file of the Saifabad Police Station herein, in which the petitioner was shown as A.6.

¶10

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

¶11

7 In view of the registration of the Crime No.668 of 2011, it cannot be said that no action has been taken by the respondents 1 and 2 on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. It is also to be noticed that the complaint of the petitioner is dated 13.12.2011, whereas the complaint of

¶12

the 7^th respondent herein is dated 10.12.2011, which is earlier in point of time and based upon which a case in Cr.No.661 of 2011 was registered against the petitioner. Hence, in view of the registration of the crimes, it cannot be said that there is delay on the part of the investigating agency so as to issue any further direction. In any event, merely because the 7^th respondent, who is having a valid passport and visa had gone to UAE, itself is not a ground to allege that the respondents 1 and 2 have helped her to leave the country. In any event, on the representation of the petitioner, which is made to the Commissioner of Police, enquiry was conducted and the allegations levelled against the police officers are found to be false. In view of such enquiry report stating that the allegations are found to be false, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition for grant of a direction to take any disciplinary action against the respondents 1 and 2 as sought for by the petitioner.

¶13

8 The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

¶15

05.03.2012 Kvsn

Anees fatima , Fatima Begum v. The Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anees fatima , Fatima Begum 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samala Krishna Murthy Vs The Station House Officer

M/s Kovai Engineering Works a.P.(P) Ltd., Vs The Superintendent of Police

Angadi Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Patan Yakub Ali Khan Vs The Circle Inspector of Police

Manoj Kothari, Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

Arugolanu Augusteen, Vs The Station House Officer