Disposed

Mogali Harish Chandra v. The Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC20 Dec 2021WP/407/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged police inclusion of his name in habitual offenders list under Article 226. Court noted counter-affidavit denied such inquiry or list entry. Petition disposed at admission stage without costs without summoning petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Order directed respondents not to summon petitioner in connection with FIR No.77 of 2009. Writ petition disposed at admission stage without costs.

Mogali Harish Chandra Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST r'ri.,, i $,Ii, 35 lfl3jif,fli^{Ar H yD E} RABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TW ,*o rnbrdiill,ilB ?+,'.Ri"oEiE'.^

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B,VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

IT PE TITIoN NO: 407 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mogili Harish Chandra. S/o.Late. tr/ogili Bal Krishna Das, Age. 41 vears. occupation. Business. eaaress. H rriol"i_r:ztoid,'"e[i,i;Ia,nil"r,;o;,Nil;j;? Home Gandhi Nagar, HyderabaO, SOfjObO.

¶9

...Petitioner/S

¶10

AND

¶11

The Commissioner of police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner of police, Chikadpally p.S.Hyderabad

¶13

The Station House Officer, l\rlusheerabad p.S., Hyderabad.

¶14

4, The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

... RespondenUs

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol 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 Order or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the Respondents in not deleting the name of the^petitioner in the list of Habitual Offenders and in any other records maintained by them and further kept silent on the Representation dated 2510212019 of the^Petitioner submitted to the First Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law,^voilativeof arlicle 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, in^{the interest of Justice.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 202'l

¶18

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High court may be pleasedto direct} the First respondent to dispose^{of the Representation of the Petitionerdated} 25l}2t2}1g forthwith for deleting^{the name of the petitionerin the list of the Habitual} offenders and in any other^{records maintained by them by communicating its order} to the Petitioner, in the interest of^{Justice, pending disposalof the above writ} petition.

¶19

lA NO:^{2 OF 2021}

¶20

petition under section^{15.1 cpcprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High Court may be pleasedto list the} above case^{under the Caption of 'FOR BEINGMENTIONED' by directing the} concerned^{Court sectionto correct the causetile and addresson web site of this} Hon,ble Court^{as well as notice orderd1.8.0,1-2021and in other proceedingsif any'} bycorrectingtheSurnameofthePetitioneras,'N4oGlLl',insteadof.MoGALl, in the interest^{of Justice, pending disposal of} including address^{as per Writ Petition,} the above writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the^{Peiitioner:SRI M. V' RAJARAAM}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GPFOR HOME}

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HONOURABLIi SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN^REDDY

¶25

WITIT'PE TITION No.,l07 Of 2021

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ^{petition is filed by the petitioner challengingthe} action of the^{respondents- police in keeping the name of the petitioner} in the list of^{habitual offendersandother records'}

¶28

Heard^{Sri M'V' Raja Raam' leamed counsel for the} petitioner,^{and leamed Government Pleaderfor Homeappearing for} the respondents,^{and perused the materialon record'}

¶29

The^{case of thc peritioncr is that hinrscll'arrdl.risrrlothcr arc} accused^{in F.l.R'No 77 of 2009 registeredron a rePortlodged by his} sister_in-law^{ror the offencepunishableunder Section354 of the} Indian^{PenalCode,1860 (for short 'IPC') against him and for the} nishable^{under Section323 ol IPC against him and his} offer-rce Pn mother^{.After filing the chargesheet, it was takenon file as S C'} No.5^{of 2010 by the leamed III Additional Metropolitan Sessions} Judge,^{Hyderabadand ultimately it wasended in acquittaias they} werefoundnotguiltybythejudgmentdatedl2.08.20l0.

¶30

4.^{Further' respondentNo'3 - the StationHouse Officer'} Musheerabad^{Police Station'Hyderabad' came to the house of the} petitioner^{on l9'012018 at about 1'30 p'm'' taken his data as if he is a} habitual^{offenderancl shownhis namein the list ol habitualoffenders} ir.r spite^{ol the petitionerir.rfornringthe police that Crime No'77 of}

¶31

¶32

¶33

2009 was lodged by his sister-in-law due to grudges against his mother. The petitioner requested respondent No.1 - the Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, to delete his name by way of application and the same was acknowledged on25.02.2019, but no action was taken.

¶34

It is submitted by the learrred Cover.nment pleader for.Home that as stated in the counter affidavit, as per the Station Records, the petitioner is not a habitual offender and no rowdy sheet is maintained against him by respondent No.3. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that his name was incruded in the rist of habitual offenders and respondent No.3 is interfering with life and personal liberty of the petitioner is denied. The fur.ther contenfion that respondent No.3 came to the house of the petitioner on 19.01.201g and taken his data lor being incruded his name in the rist of habituar offender is also denied.

¶35

In the clrcul.nstances and as it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit and reiterated by the ,eamed Government pleader for Home that name ol. the petitioner is neither included in the iist ol habitual oft'enders nor rerydl. sheet is opened against him by respondent No.3, recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission itself. It is made clear that the respondents shall not sufiImon the petitioner to the police station in connection with F.I.R. No.77 of 2009 which was registered against him on the report of his sister-in-law. No order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel theleto. nriscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶37

the writ petition stand closcci.

¶38

SD!T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶39

/iTRUE COPY// Ab

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

'1 . The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶43

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikadpally P.S.Hyderabad

¶44

The Station House Officer, Musheerabad P.S,^Hyderabad.

¶45

The Principal Secretary Home^{Department,State of Telangana,Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶46

One CC to SRI^M. V.^{RAJA RAAM,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶47

Two CCs to GP^{for Home, High court for the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad.} IOUT]

¶48

Two CD^CoPies.

¶49

B. One Spare^CoPY.

IMP

HIGH COURT

DATED:201121202'l

ORDER

g 5 lArE
,3
o
2l JIN zsl? j
* ntr: r." -ia "

¶58

WP.No.407 ot 2021

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

Mogali Harish Chandra v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mogali Harish Chandra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Csr Infratech (P) limited Vs State Bank of India

M/s. Premier Enterprises Vs The State of Telangana

Mahmood Shareef and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 9 Others

Raja Dheeraj Kumar Vs The state of telangana

Dinesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt. Mahesh Kumar Jaju

Mr.Birudula Devaraj, Vs The State of Telangana