Disposed

Mr. Abdul Mannan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Nov 2023WP/18822/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his detention in police lockup without a formal complaint, alleging violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A. The Court did not decide on the merits but directed the relevant authorities to consider the representation and take appropriate action, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2023 and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Mr. Abdul Mannan Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAYOF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:18822OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mr. Abdul Mannan, S/o. Late Abdul Munaf agred 41 years occpn business, Fyo H,No. 8-3-166/21D, Erragadda , Hyderabad

¶10

...pE,,oNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal S€cretary Home department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Banjara Hills Hyderabad. 3. The Dy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, AC Guards, masab Tank, Hyderabad

¶14

The Asst Commissioner of Police, West Zone panjagutta Hyderabad

¶15

The Station House officer, S.R. Nagar Police station, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad

¶16

Mr. Ramanjaneyulu, S/o not known to petitioner S.l. of Police,-S.R. Nagar Police station' S'R' Nagar' Hyderabad'

¶17

...REspoNoENTs Petition under Article 226 ot 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 in the form of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent no.6 in putting the petitioner inside lockup without there being any complaint against the petitioner and only when he accompanied his wife who was called to the Police station by the Respondent No.6 , as illegal, arbitrary and against the law and also in violation of the fundamental rights and the constitution guarantees contained in Ar.ticle 14, 19, Article 300 A of the constltution of lndia amounting to overreaching of the powers and consequently direct the RespoMent no. 2 to 4 to take immediate actbn against the respondent no.6

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 Respondent no. 2 to 4 to call for the ccrV Footage of s.R. Nagar police station Hyderabad dated 03.05.2022 from 03.00pm till 04.00 p.M. and preserve the same for future enquiry, pending disposal of this writ petition, in the interest of Justice

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AADESH VARMA

¶21

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: Gp FOR HOME

¶22

Counsel for Respondent No. 6: --

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASI(AR REDDY}

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.18822 of2023

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

¶28

"...ro issue a Vlit, Order or direction, more particularlg in^tLLe Jorm of Writ of Mandamu1 d.eclaing the action of respondent No.6 in^putting the petitioner inside locktp uithout there being ang complatnt against the petitioner and onlg when he acampanied his wife uho uas^called to the Police Station bg the Respondenl No.6, as illegal, arbitrary and against lhe lau and also in uiolation of the futtdamental rights^andthe constitution guarantees contained in Arlicle 14, 19, Atticle 3OO^A of ttle Constitution of India amounting to ouelTeacNng of lhe^powerc and consequentlg dtrecl the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take immediate action against the respondent no.6...'

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that there are family disputes between his wife and her father. It is further case of the^petitioner that when his wife along with her mother, went to her father's^house to settle the farnily dispute, some^galata had taken^{place. The wife} of the petitioner and her mother went to^police station to^lodgea complaint but the police informed them to come on the next day. It is further case of the petitioner that on the next day,^{when he} along with his wife went to police station to lodge a complaint, the respondent No.6 instead of registering a case against the^culprits, kept him behind the bars (lockup) rvithout there being atry compliant registereei against hirn. It is further case of thc petitioner

¶30

¶31

that the said highhanded action of the respor:cient No.6 amounts to violation of his fundamental righrs. Stating the said facts, the petitioner has submitted a representation datcd o6.o5.2023 to the respondent No.2

¶32

A collnter affidavit has been frled by tle respondent No.4, wherein inter alia it is stated that petitioner a.long with his wife came to police station and both of them created nuisance and misbehaved with the police and as such the respondents_police in good faith kept the petitioner in lock up for 10 to l s minutes and thereafter released him. It is further stated that except keeping the petitioner in lock up, the respondents_police did not harass, threaten or interfere with the tife and liberty of the petitioner or his wife in any manner nor initiated any coercive action against them.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argucd that keeping the petitioner in lockup without registration of any crime amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 2 I and 3OOA of Constitution of India and therefore, the respondents-police are liable to pay damages for tarnishing the image of the petitioner in the right thinking persons of the society.

¶34

This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to

¶35

consider the^{representationdated 06 '05 '2023 submitted by the}

¶36

petitioner and^{take appropriate actionin accordancewith law'}

¶37

6 With the^{aboveobservations,this Writ Petition is disposed of}

¶38

Miscellaneous^{Petitions,if any, pendingin these writ petttrons}

¶39

shall stand^{closed. No orderas to costs'}

¶40

SD/-MOHD.^]SMAIL ASSISTANT^REGhSTRAR //rRUE COPY// L

¶41

SECTION OdFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

To, 1. The Commissioner^{of Police, Hyderabad Q!y, p-aniara Hills Hyderabad'} 2. o;'.,bt'il'fi;i-o"tn^{Vr'ruAdvocate.to?uql} . .- 3. rwo CCs to GP^{For Ho*", tii6tic"o-'iiitir.tne Si"t" of Telangana[oUTl} 4. Two CD CoPies MBC GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0711112023

SIATE oA
le o
t 5 INI t$2\ 3
,oo
r61
u

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WP.No.18822 ot 2023

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶51

e
,y

¶52

WTHOUT COSTS

Mr. Abdul Mannan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Abdul Mannan v. The State of Telangana

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

Smt. Rapan Venkata Jyothi Vs State of Telangana

Mr. Mahipatbhai Jesingbhai Dodiya Vs the State of Telangana

Miryala Ramadevi Vs The State of Telangana

Samala Raj Karate Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Kunduru SubbaRao Vs The Government of Telangana

Chatla Nagabhushanam Vs The State of Telangana