Telangana High Court
WP/27166/2009 of Akber Ali Khan Vs The Commissioner of Police, on 31 December 2010
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27166 of 2009 BETWEEN Akber Ali Khan. ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.27166 of 2009
BETWEEN
Akber Ali Khan.
AND
... PETITIONER
The Commissioner of Police and another.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K.R. SRINIVASCounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following order:ORDER:
Petitioner seeks a Mandamus to declare the continuation of rowdysheet opened against him bearing No.824/MC.DIV/06 dated 20.12.2006,despite closure of criminal case as illegal and arbitrary and consequently,seeks closure of the rowdy sheet.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned GovernmentPleader appearing for respondents. The second respondent filed counter affidavit.
3. Counter filed by the second respondent discloses that Cr.No.237of2007 ended in acquittal of the petitioner, but there are other instancesmentioned to show that under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Codeapprehending breach of trust, respondent No.2 had opened a rowdy sheetagainst the petitioner and the petitioner’s allegation that he is beingsummoned to the police station was denied and it is also stated that thepetitioner has not been detained, as alleged.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out the order of this Court inWP.No.26953 of 2009 dated 08.10.2010 wherein in similar circumstancesanother co-accused, along with the petitioner, who was also involved inCr.No.237 of 2007, referred to above, had sought a similar relief as in thepresent case.
5. By the aforesaid order, this Court held as follows:
“Though the murder case registered against the petitionerand others ended in acquittal, it does not entitle the petitioner to seekclosure of rowdy sheet opened and continued against him. However,since no other serious cases have been registered against thepetitioner subsequent to closure of the murder case registeredagainst him, the 2[nd] respondent-Inspector of Police, Mirchowk PoliceStation, Hyderabad, is directed to examine the case of the petitioner as to whether therowdy sheet continued against him on the file of Mirchowk PoliceStation can be closed, and pass appropriate orders within a period ofthree months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. In the circumstances, there shall be a similar order with a direction tothe second respondent to examine the case of the petitioner with respect tocontinuation of the rowdy sheet and pass appropriate orders within three (3)months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order asto costs.
December 31, 2010DSK
_____________________VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J