Telangana High Court
WP/24165/2004 of Mohd. Aejazuddin, Vs The Superintendent of Police, on 27 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24165 of 2004 Between: Mohd. Aejazuddin, S/o. MD. Jamaluddin, R/o. 4-1-11,
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)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24165 of 2004
Between:
Mohd. Aejazuddin, S/o. MD. Jamaluddin,
R/o. 4-1-11, Bapuji Nagar, Paloncha, Khammam District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Superintendent of Police, Khammam District.
2 The Inspector of Police, Khottagudem, Town Kotthagudem, Khammam District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue writ or directions or orders more particularly writ of mandamusdeclaring the action of the 2nd respondent harassing and defaming the image ofthe petitioner and his family members and interfering in a family dispute andthreatening of implicating the petitioner in false case are arbitrary, illegal, badand inhuman apart from violative of letter and spirit of constitution of India andconsequently direct the 2nd respondent not to implicate the petitioner and not toharass the petitioner and his family members, and to pass such other orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MOHD.MUMTAZ PASHA
Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR HOME
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is indiscriminatelyrequiring him to attend the police station and causing harassment anddefamation to him and the members of his family. It is also alleged that thesecond respondent is threatening to foist cases against the petitioner. Heseeks appropriate directions in this regard.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forHome.
The petitioner had narrated in detail, the genesis of the dispute between himselfand his wife Smt. Mumtaz. He alleges that obviously at the instance of his wife,whom he is said to have divorced, the police is exerting pressure and causingharassment to him. There is no reference to any proceedings before the Courtsor other agencies. This Court is not inclined to verify the truth or otherwise ofthe allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.
The police can require a citizen to attend the police station and interrogate him,if only a specific complaint is made or a case is registered. Subjecting a citizento harassment, requiring him to attend the police station and treating him in animpolite manner amounts to interference with the civil and constitutional rights.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the second respondentshall not interfere with the rights of the petitioner, except where any complaintalleging criminal acts against him is received and a case is registered. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
------------------------
27.12.2004
ksld
To
1 The Superintendent of Police, Khammam District.
2 The Inspector of Police, Khottagudem, Town Kotthagudem, Khammam District.
3 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT).
4 Two CD copies.