Allowed

Syed Khaja Ziyauddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/2284/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging police interference in a civil dispute between private parties. Court directed police not to interfere with civil disputes and to follow due procedure if presence is required.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere with civil disputes; if petitioner's presence required for investigation, due procedure under Section 41A CrPC must be followed.

Syed Khaja Ziyauddin Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2284 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Syed Khaja Ziyauddin, S/o Syed Khaja Naseeruddin aged about 40^years, Occu- Business NO 17-3-39812 lmbliban yakhutpura, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad^- 5OO O22.

¶12

Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶13

Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad.

¶14

Station House Officer, Reinbazar Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶15

Mohammed Meraj, S/o lr4ohd Abdul Fateh aged abOut 50^yrs, Occ-Business No 17-2-307, Shah colony, Kurmaguda, lVladannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad Telangana

¶16

Mohammed N/uneer, S/o Mohd. Moinuddin, Aged about 60^yrs,Occu- Business Rlo 17-84811418, Shahrfa near Masjid, Shah Colony, Chanchalguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad Telangana

¶17

Shaheen begum, W/o Mohammed Muneer aged about 58^years, Occuhousehold R/o 17-B4B1l4lB, Shahifa near Masjid, Shah Colony, Chanchalguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad Telangana

¶18

Mohammed Jahangir, S/o. Not known to the^petitioner, Aged about 55^years, Occ. Additional Deputy Commissioner of^Police, South^{Zone Hyderabad,} Office of South Zone, Deputy Commissioner of Police Hyderabad.

¶19

fRespondent^{No. 8 is impleaded as per C.O.dt. '15.03.2024 in lA No.} '212024)

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the^High Court^{may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction especially one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent no.3 in^{interferingcivil} disputeS between the Respondents No. 5, 6^and Tand^forcing the^{petitioner to} pay the amounts to the Respondent No. 6 and 7 herein as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and violative of^Articles

¶22

14, 15. 16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the Respondent no. 3 not to call the petitioner to the police station or his office without due process of law in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suppo( of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the direct the Respondent no.3 not to cafl the petitioner to the porice station or his office without due process of raw in the interest of justice pending disposal of the main Writ petition, in the interest of justice

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M. A. MUJEEB

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: Gp FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5tog:--

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.^{BHASKAR REDDY} WRIT PETITION No.2284 of 2o24

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition is filed seeking^{the following relief:-}

¶31

"...to issue a Writ, Order^{or Directionespecially one in} the Nature of Writ of^{Mandamus declaring the action} of Respondent No.3 in interfering^{civil disputes} between Respondent^Nos.S to 7^{and forcingthe} petitioner to pay the amounts to^{RespondentNos.6} and 7 herein as illegal, arbitrary^{and violative of} provisions of the Criminal^{ProcedureCode and} violative of Articles 14,^{15, 16 and 21 of Constitution} of India and consequently^{directRespondent No.3 not} to call the petitioner to^{the Police Station or his Ofhce} without due Process of^law..."

¶32

The case of the petitioner^{is that there are financial} transactions between^{respondent Nos.Sand 6'It is also,the} case of the petitioner^{that respondentNo.S enteredinto a} Memorandum of Mutual^{Understandingwith respondent} No.6 for payment of^{Rs.10.OOlakh to respondent No'6 and} the said understanding^{was also reduced in writing and he} .scribed^{the same as witness. It is the furthercase of the} pbtition.. that.'.-di_sputes arose on^{implementationof the}

¶33

¶34

CVBR..I Wp 228a 2024

¶35

aforesaid agreement and respondent Nos.S to 7 instead of approaching the competent civil Court have approached respondent Nos.3 and 4 to resolve the said disputes. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that at the instigation of respondent Nos.5 to 7, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are frequently summoning him to the police station, confining him for hours together and forcing him to pay the said amount to respondent No.6.

¶36

Le arned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently corrtended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not having any power or authority to summon the petitioner and even if his presence is required in any case, wherein the offences alleged are punishable below seven years, it is mandatory on the part of the police to issue a notice as required under Section 4l A of Cr.P.C. and to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihart but instead of following the said procedure, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are threatening the petitioner to pay the amount to respondent Nos.5 to 8,

rlzot+y s scc zz:

CVBR, J Wp 12E4 2024

I I

lrarned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home, on} instructions, would^{submit that so far no complaint has} been received against the^{petitionerand if any complaint} submitted by respondent^{Nos.S to 8 and if the same would} reveals commission^{of cognizableoffence the police will} take appropriate action^{under Section 154 of Cr'P'C' and} as per the guidelines^{issued by the Hon'ble ApexCourt in}

¶42

Lalita Kumari o.^{StateoJ Uttar Pradeshz.}

¶43

ln view of the above^{submissions, this Court deemsit} appropriate to dispose^{of the writpetition directing} respondent Nos.3 and^{4 not to interfere with the civil} disputes pending^{betweenthe petitioner and respondent} Nos.5 to 7, in any^{manner and ifthe presence of the} petitioner is required^{for the purpose of investigationin any} case, respondent^{Nos.3and 4 are directed to followthe due} procedure.

¶44

With the above^{observations, this Writ Petition is} disposed of.^{There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶45

2 1zorl1 z scc r

¶46

¶47

CVI]R. J Wp 2284 2O24

¶48

7 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶49

any, shall stand closed.

¶50

//TRUE COPYII

¶51

SD/.K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR

¶52

SECTIO FFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

The Additional Deoutv Commissioner of police, South Zone, Hyderabad 2. . The Srarion House oif HoME-,Hish icer. nernoaiai c*.ii'?i,", Fofi;; Sdril;, in8'bite Hyderabad.or reransana, ar Iyo""?,.;}. ,35fio*

¶55

1 9n"^{CC ro SRt M. e H/lU.ieEg,} Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

KKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 910312024

\1 i- sr4;:<br>c 1 -:<br>Y
't c;' ...,
r)
,) 0 0 uw 2924
,.) l,
* - .7,,/
Sir71T611!t)

¶61

ORDER

¶62

WP.No.2284 of 2024

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

(,
4 \q
@aqior
6sv

Syed Khaja Ziyauddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Khaja Ziyauddin 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

Vankudoth Susheela Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Mr. Chippakurthy Narayana Vs State of Telangana

Theodore Aloysius Emanuel Vs State of Telangana

Kothapalli Uppalaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Beeshmanth Kotamreddy Vs The State of Telangana

Paradise Peak Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana