Afshan Khan Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 4694 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Afshan Khan, W/o Mohammed Shafi Ahmed Khan, Aged about 52 yrs, OccHome maker, R/o .B-1-398/5E/7, Sana Enclave, Golconda,Hyderabad, Telangana - 500008

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate. Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate. Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate. Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate. Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

Ms. Nikhat Javed, C/o Javed Ali, Age-36 years, Occ- private employee.^Rl/o 10-3-316 and 317 . Gulmohar garden NMDC lane, lvlasab tank, Potti Sriramulu naear,Asifnaaar, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad Telangana - 500028

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring, the high handed action of the Sth Respondent in detaining the son of the petitioner without following due^process of law and without any^valid reasons basing on the complaint lodged by the respondent^No.6 on^{1410212025 is} illegal. arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the^Constitution of^lndiaand

¶19

consequently direct the respondent No. 5 not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioner and her son by calling to the Sth respondent police station without following due process of law in the interest of justice

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRl. BALA KRISHNA MANDAPATI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI M. SRINIVAS AGP FOR HOME

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: ---

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.4694 0F 2025

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.5 - Station House officer, Madhapur porice station' in detaining her son viz., Ghazanfar Rizvi without foilowing due process of law, on the complaint dated 14.02.2025 lodged by respondent No.6, as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of lhe Constitution of lndia.

¶28

Heard Mr. Mandapati Bala Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. srinivas, learned Assistant Government preader for Home, and perused the material available on record.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition was moved by way of^,House Motion, on 15.02.2025 and immediately after the writ petition was numbered, the son of the petitioner was produced before the rearned X Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, in Crime No.22l of 2O2E ot Madhapur Police Station, however his remand was not accepted by the learned Magistrate and he was set at liberty. The petitioner and her family members, including her son, apprehend that respondent No.S will interfere with personal liberty of the petitioner and her son without

¶30

2

¶31

following due process of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the dispute between the^petitioner's son and respondent No.6 is regardlng the custody of their minor child.

¶32

As it is reported to this Court that the son of the petitioner vlz., Ghazanfar Rizvi is not in detention and moreover his remand application was not accepted by the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.5 not to interfere with^personal liberty of the petitioner and her son without following due process of law. As innocuous order is passed, notice to respondent No.6 is dispensed with. So far as the custody rights over the minor child is concerned, the petitioner's son is always at liberty to approach the competent Family Court and seek injunction restraining respondent No.6 from interfering with his custodial rights over the child. lf respondent No.6 in any way feels aggrieved by this order, she is at liberty to approach this Court seeking modification of this order. No order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶34

SD/. T.TIRUMALA^DEVI AS ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36