Dismissed

Abu Azam Bin Mohammed Bajusair and 2 Others v. Commissioner of Police and 2 Others

Telangana HC17 Sept 2020WP/5203/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a notice appearing petitioners to enter a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The Court held the Magistrate was competent to initiate proceedings and refrained from examining merits, directing a fresh notice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; directions issued for fresh appearance before the Magistrate.

Abu Azam Bin Mohammed Bajusair and 2 Others Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY^OFSEPTETUBER TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P, NAVEEN^RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5203 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Abu Azam Bin Mohammed Bajusair, S/o Abu Khasim, Age about 55 Years, Occ.Business, R/o H.No,1B-7-198lA161lB, Near Suleman^{Diary, Talabkatta,} Hyderabad.

¶9

Abu Laraib Bin Azam Bajusair, S/o Abu Azam Bin lVohammed Bajusair,^{age 25} Years, Occ. PVT Job, Fl/o H.No. 1B-7-198lA161lB, Near Suleman^Diary, Talabkatta, Hyderabad.

¶10

Abu Naif, S/o Abu Azam Bin Mohammed Bajusair, age 22 Years Occ. Pvt Job, R/o H.No. 18-7-19BlN61lB, Near Suleman Diary, Talabkat,u ,rd"r1.??l,r,o"r*,

¶11

AND

¶12

Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh Hyderbad

¶13

Special Executive lVagistrate, at Hyderabad Nampally.

¶14

Station House Officer, Bhavani nagar, Talabkatta Bhavani nrnrr, .IXEE!n?j=r

¶15

Petition under Article 226 o'f 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 direction more particularly Writ of [V]andamus or any other writ or writs to declare that the summons issued by the 2nd Respondents to appear before him/her requiring the Petitioners to enter in to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with sureties if required, on the bases of petition filed by the 3rd Respondent rs without any bases, illegal, arbitrator and violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioners guaranteed under Article '19 and 21 of the Constitution in Mc.No. B/1 38/2020 dated 2210212020

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

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 suspend the summons issued by the 2nd Respondents to appear before him/her requiring the Petitioners to enter in to a personal on bond of Rs. 50,0001 with sureties if required, on lhe bases of petition filed by the 3rd Respondent in Mc.No. 8113812020 daled 2210212020 issued by the 2nd Respondent to appear before him/her and to file bond, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ABU AKRAM

¶18

Counsel for Respondents: Gp FOR HOME

¶19

The Courl made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.52O3 OF 2O2O

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents

¶25

This writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad, the 2,rd respondent, dated 22.O2.2020 calling upon the petitioners to appear before him on 26.O2.2020 and to show cause why they should not be required to enter into a personal bond with sureties for Rs.50,000/ -. This notice is issued under Section lO7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.).

¶26

Learned counsei for the petitioners contends that the reason for issuance of this notice is based on a crime registered against the petitioners and there is no truth in the allegations^{made in the} crime reported against them. Further,^{petitioners are prosecuting} their education and if any decision is^{made, it wouldadversely} affect their further education^prospects.

¶27

As stated by learned counsel for^{the petitioners'on} 26.O2.2O2O , petitioners appeared^{and informed the Special} Executive Magistrate that they^{have grievance against the notice} issued by him and taking steps to^{invoke the jurisdiction of the} Hon'ble High Court and requested for^{differing the proceedings.} Acceding to the said request, the^{proceedings weredifferedand it} appears no further orders^{are passed.}

¶28

¶29

It is not in dispute that the Special Executive Magistrate is the competent authority to initiate proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C., and to pass orders under Section 111 Cr.P.C. A reading of Section 107 Cr.P.C., makes it clear that whenever an Executive Magistrate received information that any person is like1y to commit a breach of peace or dlsturb the public tranquiiity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, require such person to show cause u,hy he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or u,ithout sureties for keeping the peace lor such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

¶30

It is not in disputc that in Crime No.30 of 2O2O, petitioners are shou,n as accused. In fact, according to learned Assistant Government Pleader, there are several crimes registered against the petitioners.

¶31

Since it cannot be said that there was no basis for the Special Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings against the petitioners and he has competence to initiate proceedings under Section 1 07 Cr. P. C. , the Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶32

F:^{The writ petitionis accordingly dismissed leaving it open to} the petitioners to work out their remedies as available in law. The Jurisdictional Magistrate shall issue fresh notice fixing a date for appearance of the petitioners and the petitioners shall appear on the said date. It is needless to observe that all the submissions

¶33

¶34

made by the petitioners have to be considered by the Executive Special Magistrate before a decision is made by him. pending

¶35

miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶36

¶37

//TRUE COPY'

¶38

SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGIST

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Special Executive Magistrate, at Hyderabad Nampally. 2. One CC to Sri Abu Akram Advocate IOPUC] 3 Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) 4. Two CD Copies IVBC

'$\k

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1710912020

'&
1 tle s IA 16
c
I oo 24SEP2M a

DF.S PAT c i

¶47

ORDER

¶48

WP.No.5203 of 2020

¶49

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶50

WITHOUT COSTS

Abu Azam Bin Mohammed Bajusair and 2 Others v. Commissioner of Police and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abu Azam Bin Mohammed Bajusair and 2 Others v. Commissioner of Police and 2 Others

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

Mirza Taimur Baig (Najam) Vs The State of Telangana

Nenavath Kishan Vs The State of Telangana

Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Mateen Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society Vs Government of Telangana

Munnuru Manemma Vs The State of Telangana