Disposed

Narreddy Madhukar Reddy v. the Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC15 Dec 2020WP/11859/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging police pressure to pay Rs. 80 Lakhs or transfer properties and questioning arrest legality. Court disposed petition based on Commissioner's assertion that police advised civil remedy for very similar land dispute and correctly limited investigation. Wide of parties involved in alleged land dispute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no order passed against petitioners as matter closed on civil nature assertion.

Narreddy Madhukar Reddy Vs the Commissioner… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 11859 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Narreddy l,4adhukar Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged.35 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o, H No. 3-40148-2, Hitech City Colony, Mancherial Town and Dist.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam Commissionerate, Peddapally Dist

¶13

The Station House Officer, Mancherial Town Police Statron, Mancherial Dist.

¶14

The Sub lnspector of Police, Mancherial Town Police Station, Mancherial Dist.

¶15

Mr.Muthi Lingam, Circle lnspector of Police lvlancherial Town Police Station, l\rlancherial Dist

¶16

6 Mr. Maruthi, The Sub lnspector of Police, It/ancherial Town Police Station, Mancherial Dist

¶17

Kukka Bhagya @ Bhagyalaxmi, W/o. Late Ralesh Rajesham, Aged.39 yrs, Occ Household, FVo. H No. 27-1-109, Railway Station area Bellampally Town and Mandal, Mancherial Dist.

¶18

B. lv]ohammad Rizwan, W/o. Mohammad Sabir Pasha, Aged. 30^yrs, Occ. Household, C/o. Sadiq, SLATE HIGH SCHOOL, zaffarnagat, Mancherial Town and Dist.

¶19

Pettam Rani, Wo. Srinivas, Aged. 43 yrs, Occ. Household, F/o. H. No. 2616, Railway quarters, Zatfarnagar, [/ancherial Town and Dist.

¶20

Pittala Srilatha, W/o. Mondaiah, Aged. 33 yrs, Occ. emplo vee in SC Railway, Ticket Collector at I/ancherial Railway Station, Mancheria I Railway Station l/ancherial Town and Dist.

¶21

'1 1. Gadapa Rakesh, S/o. Rajender, Aged. 33 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. H No. 4-267, Zaff arnagar, Mancherial Town and Dist.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of [V]andamus declaring the action of the Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 in interfering with the^personal liberty of the petitioner by calling to the 3rd respondent Police Station at the instance of the respondent No.7 and^'1 1 and pressurizing the petitioner to give an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- ( Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) or to register his personal properties to the respondent No.8 to 10 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law apart from violation of principles of natural^justice besides violation of Articles 14, 21 and 303-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 not to pressurize the petitioner herein to give an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) or to register his personal properties to the respondent No.B to 10, by illegally supporting the acts of respondent No.'1 1, usurping the^jurisdiction of a competent civil court in an illegal manner.

Contd

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents 3 to 6 not to pressurize the petitioner herein to give an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/ - (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) or to register his personal properties to the respondent No.8 to 10, by illegally supporting the respondent No. 7 and not to call the petitioner to the 4th respondent Police Station, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8 to 11: SRI E. RAMESH CHANDRA GOUD

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7:--------

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

)

¶34

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO,11859 of 2O2O

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri E.Ramesh Chandra learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 to 11.

¶38

This writ petition is filed praying to declare the action of respondents 3 to 6 in interfering with personal liberty of the petitioner by calling him to the 3.d respondent- Police Station at the instance of respondents 7 and I I and pressurizing him to give an amount of Rs.SO Lakhs or to register his personal propertie.s in favour of respondents 8 to 10 and such action is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and it amounts to abdication of powers by the police authorities.

¶39

The concerned police officers against whom allegations are made are arrayed as respondents 5 and 6.

¶40

In paragraph No.6 of the affidavit fi1ed in support of the writ petition, petitioner alleges that as per the conversation of respondents 6 and 7 in respondent No.3 Police Station, they are pressurizing the petitioner to give an amount of Rs.BO Lakhs or to register his personal properties. It is further alleged that since two months, respondents 6 and 7 were harassing the petitioner. It is further alleged that respondents 3 to 6 were calling the petitioner to police station r,"'ithout any reason and making him to sit in the police station lor hours togcther. His wile, apprehending danger to him, approachcd the police and asked respondents 3 to 6 the

¶41

¶42

¶43

reasons for making the petitioner to sit in the^police station for hours together. No reasons were assigned by the^police and they abused the petitioner in filthy language and continued to^make him sit in the police station till late night hours.

¶44

In the counter afirdavit deposed by Sri V.Satyanarayana working as Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam Commissionerate, he denies the said allegations.

¶45

According to the Commissioner of Police, against petitioner two crimes are registered. Cr.No.325 of 2O2O was registered for the offences under Section 42O, 29O of Indian Penal Code (lPC) and Section 3(1)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Cr.No.288 of 2O2O was registered under Section 290 and 505 (2) of IPC and police are only investigating into the said crimes.

¶46

In Paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit the Commissioner denies the allegation of police officers trying to settle the dispute and pressurizing the petitioner to pay Rs.8O Lakhs or to transfer his properties. It is stated that on the complaint given by one Dr.Naveen Kumar about the disputed land, linking the petitioner to the said dispute, parties appeared in the police station and showed their respective land documents. On seeing those documents, the sth respondent advised both parties to avail civil law remedy to assert their rights and subsequently, the matter was closed as civil in nature. It is therefore asserted that the question of calling the petitioner to police station and pressurizing him to pay Rs.80 Lakhs or transfer his properties does not arise.

¶47

.+-

¶48

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with this assertion of Commissioner of Police

¶50

It can not be said that police are illegally interfering in the life, liberty and property of petitioner. Two crimes are reported against the petitioner and it is the bounden duty of police to investigate into the crimes and if the crimes reported relate to landed property, police are also entitled to visit the scene of offence to take stock of the situation. In addition to the two crimes registered, it appears, a person by name Dr.Naveen Kumar fiied a complaint and in the process of prima-facie enquiry into the complaint, parties came before the police with respective documents showing that they are the owners of the disputed property' and having verified, the police have closed the complaint advising the partics to avail civil law remedies. Once a crime is reported, it is also open to the police to conduct preliminary enquiry to asccrtain prima-facre, whether the crime can be registered or the dispute agitated is one of civil in nature. In that process, if the police verify the genuineness of documents, it can not be faulted as involving in civil disputes. However, it is needless to observe that the role of police is only to investigate into the crime reported or complaints lodged, but they can not involve in inter se civil disputes.

¶51

¶52

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner does not own any property and false complaints are reported against him. If what is stated by the petitioner is true, it is always open to him to work out his remedies as available in law.

¶53

-5-

¶54

1 1. In view of the categorical assertion in paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit deposed by the Commissioner of police, Ramagundam Commissionerate, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petitjon.

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/.K.AM ASSISTANT REG

/iTRUE COPY'

SECTI OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary (Home Department), State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶62

The Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam Commissionerate, Peddapally Dist.

¶63

The Station House Officer, Mancherial Town Police Station, Mancherial Dist.

¶64

The Sub lnspector of Police, Mancherial Town Police Station, Mancherial Dist.

¶65

One CC to Sri. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

One C.C. to Sri. E. Ramesh Chandra Goud, Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶68

Two C.D. Copies

Prk

HIGH COURT

DATED:1511212020

ORDER

WP.No.11859 of 2020

1 H e S TA
k
oo 2 3 DEC 2U0
o
* *
sPATC

¶75

Disposing of the WP.

¶76

c
<br>v,

Narreddy Madhukar Reddy v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narreddy Madhukar Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.A.S. Padma Latha Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Banala Sanjeeva Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

P. Usha Goud and 5 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Kudmeta Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

G. Krishna Reddy and 6 Others Vs The State of T.S. and 14 Others

M/s. Krishan Sai Wines, Vs the State of Telangana