Telangana High Court
WP/26176/2008 of Smt.V.M.S.Zareena Vs The Commissioner of Police, on 24 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26176 of 2008 Between: Smt.V.M.S.Zareena W/o. Sirajuddin Door No. 8-25-3, Mohanlal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULUWRIT PETITION NO : 26176 of 2008
Between:
Smt.V.M.S.Zareena W/o. Sirajuddin
Door No. 8-25-3, Mohanlal Street, Wynchipeta, Vijayawada-1. KrishnaDistrict.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
2 The Sub Inspector of Police, Suryaraopet Crime Police Station,Vijayawada.Vijayawada.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly in the natureof Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents inthreatening the petitioner and her family members with direconsequences without there being any crime as illegal, arbitrary,unconstitutional and against the Fundamental Rights which wasguaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct therespondents with the life and liberty of the petitioner and her familymembers and to take immediate action on the complaint given by thepetitioner on 22-11-2008 to 1st respondent and others and be pleased topass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.26176 of 2008
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.
ORAL ORDER:
According to the learned counsel for petitioner, two criminal caseswere booked against petitioner’s husband and both of them ended inacquittal. Further, a rowdy sheet has been opened against petitioner’shusband at Nunna Rural Police Station, Vijayawada and the same is stillcontinuing and under the guise of the same, Police are harassingpetitioner and her family members time and again. According to thelearned counsel, only if there are more than two case are pending, thenonly rowdy sheet can be opened, therefore opening of rowdy sheetagainst the petitioner’s husband itself is arbitrary and illegal.
Since it is admitted by the learned counsel appearing forrespondents that unless there are more than two cases, no rowdy sheetcan be opened, I am of the view that it is always open for the husband ofthe petitioner is directed to make a representation to the first respondentwithin a period of one week from today. On filing such representation, thefirst respondent shall consider and review as to closing of rowdy sheetagainst the petitioner’s husband on or before 31.10.2008 in the routinereview of such cases.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Date: 23.12.2008DA
____________
C.V.RAMULU, J
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.26176 of 2008
23.12.2008