Dismissed

Hussain Bin Ali v. The State of Telangana and 9 Others

Telangana HC11 Dec 2020WP/21126/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered objections to police complaint registration and requests for CCTV footage. The Court refused to examine the claim of illegal detention as it was raised belatedly, granting liberty to prosecute the representation to the Commissioner of Police while dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to prosecute representation filed with Commissioner of Police regarding alleged illegal detention.

Hussain Bin Ali Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.21126 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Hussain Bin Ali, S/o. Ali Bin Abdul Rab, Aged 33 years, Occ. Business, Rio. H.No.1B-9-44411, Chandrayanagutta, Badiya ap pa gali, Bandlaguda, Keshavagiri, Hyderabad -500 005. T.S.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

I The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

3 The Deputy Commissroner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶14

4 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶15

5 The Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Telangana State.

¶16

The Station House Officer, P.S., Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶17

Mohammed Nawaz, S/o. I/ohammed Ali, Aged 28 years, Occ. fuC Technician, R/o H.No.18-9-433, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶18

B. Mohammed Arshad, S/o. Mohammed Ali, Aged 30 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.18-9-446, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶19

Saleh Bin Mohammed @ Saleh Bintriff, S/o. Mohammed Bin Mubarak Aged 29 years, Occ. Car Dealer at Aramgadh, R/o. H.No.18-10-28/6, Barkas, Balapur Road, Chand rayanag utta, Hyderabad - T.S.

¶20

K.Dineshwar, PC-2290, S/o. K.Bhooshankar, aged 33 years, Occ. Task Force, South Zone, Hyderabad.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Adicle 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4,6 and 1Oth Respondents in abusing their offices and committing extra-virus acts against the Petitioner at the instance of Respondents no.7 to 9 by fabricating invented allegations and registering malicious complaints against the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to cause due enquiry and collect the CCTV Footages from 1111012020 at about 5.00 PM from petitioner residence bearing H.No.18-9-444, Chandrayanagutta, Keshavagiri, Hyderabad to the office of the 4th Respondent and CCTV Footages of 3rd and 4th Respondents offices situated at Purani Haveli from 5.00 PM on 1111012020 to 1211012020 tlll 6.00 PM. And from 6.00 PM 1211012020 to 1411012020 of the 6th Respondent office and do needful justice in accordance to law.

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 1 and 2 to cause due enquiry and collect the CCTV Footages from 1111012020 at about 5.00 PIV from petitioner residence bearing H.No, 18-9-444, Chandrayanagutta, Keshavagiri, Hyderabad to the office of the 4th Respondent and CCTV footages of 3rd and 4th Respondents offices situated at Purani Haveli from 5.00 PM on^'1 111012020 1o 1211012O2O till 6.00 PM. And from 6.00 PM 1211012020 Io 1411012020 of the 6th Respondent office and do needful^justice in accordance to law; pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: AGP FOR HOME

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10: NONE APPEARED

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

)

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.21126 oF 2020

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 6

¶36

This lvrit petition is filed praving to declare the action of respondents 4,6 and 10 in abusing their offices and committing extra-virus acts against petitioner at the instance of respondents 7 to 9 by fabricating invented allegations and registering malicious complaints against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner seeks consequential direction to respondents 1- and 2 to cause due enquiry and collect the CCTV footage from 1 1.10.2O20 at about 5:0O P.M., from his residence bearing H.No.18-9-444, Chandrayanagutta, Keshavagiri, Hyderabad, to the office of respondent No.4 and CCTV footages of the offices of respondents 3 and 4 situated at Purani Haveli from 5:00 P.M., on 11.1O.2O20 to 12.10.2020 till 6:00 P.M., and from 6:O0 P.M., on 12.lO.2O2O to 74.1O.2O2O of the office of respondent No.6.

¶37

In other u'ords, the prayer in the writ petition is two fold. The first limb of the prayer relates to alleged abusing of the powers vested in the police authorities by fabricating and inventing allegations and registering malicious complaints against the petitioner at the instance of respondents 7 to 9. The second

¶38

¶39

limb of the prayer relates to collection of CCTV footage. The second limb of the prayer is on the issue that petitioner was illegally detained by the police on 17.1O.2O20 at about 5:0O P.M., from his residence and was produced before the Magistrate only on 14.1O.2O2O and therefore it amounts to illegal detention.

¶40

With reference to first limb of the prayer, it is not in dispute that two crimes are registered. First crime was registered on 12.10.2O2O bearing Crime No.483 ol 2O2O and second crime was registered on 13.10.2020 bearing Crime No.487 of 2O2O. The said crimes are not under challenge in this u'rit petition. Therefore, the Court is not expressing an1' opinion on this aspect as to whether crimes were vvrongly registered at thc instance of respondents 7 to 9.

¶41

With reference to second limb of the prayer, in paragraph No.1 i of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner narrates the events leading to his arrest and detention and contends that if CCTV footage for the dates mentioned therein are looked into, the allegations of the petitioner that he was illegal detained on 1 1.10.2020 at 5:0O P.M., from his residence and kept in illegal custody of the police tlll 14.10.2O2O can be established.

¶42

As noticed from the material placed on record, this particular aspect, as reflected in paragraph No.11 of the affidavit, is highlighted for the first time in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition but in support of the second limb of the prayer, the same was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police, who is the controlling authority on officers working in the

¶43

¶44

Hyderabad City Police Commissionerate. In the representation submitted by the petitioner on 09. 1 I .2020 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, the said aspect was not reflected.

¶45

After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner on27.11.2O2O, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to this date. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the memo filed by him bearing USR.No.41423 of 2O2O enclosing a copy of the representation submitted to the Commissioner of Police on 30. i l.2O2O. In page No.3 of the said representation, petitioner has reiterated what is reflected in paragraph No. 1 I of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

¶46

L In other words, for the first time, after filing of the writ petition and after the last hearing, the representation is now made placing before the Commissioner of Police his grievance about the alleged illegal detention.

¶47

9 . As noticed above, after the adjournment of the writ petition, for the first time, the matter is placed before the Commissioner of Police informing him of the alleged illegal detention. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to go into that aspect at this stage and petitioner is granted liberty to prosecute the application/ representation submitted to the Commissioner of Police on 30.ll.2O2O and work out his remedies as available in law.

¶48

¶49

Granting the said liberty and subject to the observations made on the first limb of the prayer in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

¶50

stand closed.

¶51

SD/. B.SATHY AV ASSISTANT REG

i/TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

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

¶57

Two C.D. Copies

Prk

HIGH COURT

DATED'.1111212020

ORDER

'( H e s 14
o3 I{'
)
oo 2 2 DEC 2M.0
* * {+
DL s.,..

¶63

WP.No.21126 of 2020

¶64

Dismissing the WP. 5N 5-b?'^AL 2A )ts0-,-\t^4,,.

Hussain Bin Ali v. The State of Telangana and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hussain Bin Ali v. The State of Telangana and 9 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

Mr. Sudheer Sharma Goda, Vs The Co-Operative Tribunal

Mansoor Shah Khan and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs The State of Telangana and 8 Others

C.B.Chandrakala Vs Smt. Chitra Ramachandran, Ias.

G. Naganna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and 20 Others

K. Saritha Rani Vs The State of Telangana