Telangana High Court
WP/24157/2004 of Nasreen, Vs The Director General 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 MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24157 of 2004 Between: Nasreen, W/o. Anwar, R/o. 7-41, Venkatram Reddy Colony,
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 MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 24157 of 2004
Between:
Nasreen, W/o. Anwar,
R/o. 7-41, Venkatram Reddy Colony, Medchal, R.R.District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Director General of Police, lakdika Pool, Hyderabad.
2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad.
3 The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Dundigal, Cyberabad.
4 Station House Officer, Police Station, Dundigal, R.R.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 pleased toPass an order or orders one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring theaction of the respondent No.4 for interfering into the peaceful life of the petitionerincluding calling the petitioner into the police station without any reason in spite ofgiving complaint to the higher authorities dt. 15.12.2004 i.e., the respondents 1 to 3and declare the same as totally illegal, arbitrary against the principle of naturaljustice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SURESH SHIV SAGAR
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME
The Court at the admission stage made the following :
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.
ORDER:
The petitioner alleges that respondent No.4 viz., the Station House Officer, PoliceStation, Dundigal, is interfering with her peaceful life and is indiscriminately callingher to the Police Station. She claims to have submitted a complaint to respondents 1to 3 on 15.12.2004 narrating the alleged acts of harassment against her.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home.
From a perusal of the affidavit, it is evident that there was some altercation betweenherself and Muthawalli of a Darga. Unless a specific complaint is filed against thepetitioner by any aggrieved person, the petitioner cannot be required to attend thePolice Station. The question as to whether the said Muthawalli had submitted awritten complaint to the Police Station cannot be decided at this stage by this Court.There cannot be any justification for the 3[rd] respondent in interfering with the rightsof the petitioner or indiscriminately calling her to the police station, except where aspecific case is registered against her.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 4[th] respondent shall not callthe petitioner to the Police station indiscriminately, except where a specificcomplaint or a case is registered against her. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________
Note: Issue wire at party’s costs.
(B/o)
27.12.2004
To
1 The Director General of Police, Lakdika Pool, Hyderabad.
2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad.
3 The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Dundigal, Cyberabad.
4 Station House Officer, Police Station, Dundigal, R.R.District.
5 2CCs to the G.P for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad(O.U.T)
6 2CD copies