In this stale writ petition, Justice S.V. Bhatt disposed of the petitioner's challenge against alleged arbitrary police detentions and harassment without substantive analysis or findings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
W.P.No.30340 OF 2013
ORDER:
Heard Ms.N.T.Lavanya, holding for Mr.Nandigam Krishna Rao, counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
The writ prayer writ prayer reads thus:
……this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:
i) to declare the action the action of the second respondent police in repeatedly calling the petitioner to the Police Station and detaining and harassing him without any fault of him since from 12.9.2013 by the second respondent police under the guise that his father-in-law Rayavalasa Santhosh Kumar and brother-in-law Rayavalasa Siva Santhosh Kumar, are involved in chain snatching case pertaining to the first respondent police station, though he has not committed any offence nor in any way connected with that of the said allegation as illegal arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and against the powers vested in the second respondent; and
ii) to consequently direct the respondents to see that the petitioner is not called to the Police Station and harassed by any one of the Police Stations including the second respondent herein for no fault of his; and
iii) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, property and appropriate in the circumstances of the case”.
The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit and the operative
portion reads thus:
“It is humbly submitted that this respondent never seen the petitioner nor his father-in-law Rayavalasa Santosh Kumar and brother-in-law Rayavalasa Siva
2
Santosh Kumar. As of now, this respondent never summoned them to the police station nor interrogated them.
It is humbly submitted that the investigation is going on in all angles to find out the real culprits who behind the commission of offence. I humbly submit that as a precautionary measure to prevent the police from taking any action if any information is received by the police against him in future, the petitioner rushed to this Hon’ble Court and filed the present writ petition with baseless allegations. Certainly action will be taken if any clues are forthcoming about the involvement of the petitioner during the course of investigation by duly following the procedure. On mere apprehension, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for obtaining orders. No credence can be given to the contentions/allegations raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at its threshold”.
The stand of the 1st respondent in the counter affidavit is taken on record.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________ S.V.BHATT, J
02nd January, 2018 Lrkm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to issue a writ of mandamus to restrain the police from calling the petitioner and detaining him without any fault of his.
Whether to direct the respondents to ensure the petitioner is not harassed by any police station.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nandigam Krishna Rao
Home Department
S.V.Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
