WP/5473/2010 of Smt. Farhat Begtum Vs The Inspector of Police on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare theaction of respondent No.1 in interfering with the peaceful possessionof the petitioner in respect of property bearing municipal No.10-3-299/4, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad in violation of order passed inI.A.No.13/2010 in O.S.No.139/2010 on the file of X Junior CivilJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary.

In his affidavit, the petitioner has averred that he is theowner of property bearing municipal No.10-3-299/4, Humayun Nagar,Hyderabad, that when some of his relatives sought to grab the saidproperty, he filed O.S.No.139/2010 in the Court of X Junior CivilJudge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein an order of injunction hasbeen granted in I.A.No.13/2010. The petitioner alleged that tooverreach the said order of injunction, his adversaries approachedrespondent No.1 who in turn summoned the petitioner to PoliceStation and gave him an ultimatum that if the petitioner does notallow his relatives to occupy the property, a criminal case will befoisted against him. The petitioner further submitted that against thesaid unlawful conduct of respondent No.1, he has approachedrespondent No.2 and that the same has not yielded any result. Thepetitioner has therefore filed the present Writ Petition.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the Inspector of Police,Humayun Nagar, wherein it is inter alia stated one Samsuddins/o.Nizamuddin filed a complaint against Chandra Bobby Abeze,General Power of Attorney of the petitioner, to the effect that the saidperson tried to dispossess the complainant from the abovementioned house and that on the basis of the said complaint, CrimeNo.24/10 under Sections 448, 352, 341, 506 r/w. Section 34 IPC wasregistered on 23-1-2010 against the G.P.A. of the petitioner and some others. It is further stated that investigation into the said crimeis pending and the allegation of interference in civil disputes isstoutly denied.

When this Writ Petition came up for admission and hearing,this Court has taken serious notice of the innumerable complaintsbeing received by this Court by way of Writ Petitions pertaining topolice interference in civil disputes. This Court has further noticedthat despite pronouncements by it, the complaints of policeinterference in civil disputes continued unabated. On 10-3-2010,this Court passed the following order :

“The Director General of Police is impleaded suo motu asrespondent No.3.

The instances of Police interference in civil disputes appear tocontinue unabated. A series of cases being received by thisCourt day in and day out bears testimony for this fact. On earlieroccasions, this Court expressed its disapproval in no uncertainterms when the Police interfered with the civil disputes. This hasled to issuance of certain Circulars by the Director General ofPolice instructing the Police Officers to refrain from interfering incivil disputes. But, these Circulars appear to be observed morein breach, if the countless number of cases that are being filedbefore the Court is any indication.

Therefore, the Director General of Police shall file his personalaffidavit explaining to the Court the measures taken forimplementation of the Circulars issued by his office on the Policeinterference in civil disputes. The affidavit should indicate thenumber of cases detected involving Police interference in civildisputes and the action taken against the erring Police officers.”

The case has undergone several adjournments thereafter and theDirector General of Police has filed his personal affidavit. During thehearing, this Court has suggested that in order to prevent recurrenceof the incidents of police interference in civil disputes it would beappropriate to evolve an appropriate mechanism whereby suchcomplaints are properly attended to, relief is provided to the victimsof police interference wherever such allegations are found true and appropriate disciplinary action taken against the erring policeofficers.

Today, at the hearing, Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader attached to the office of learned AdvocateGeneral, has placed before the Court G.O.Ms.No.288, Home (PS &C.A2) Department, dated 6-11-2010. It would be appropriate toreproduce contents of the G.O. herein below:

“In the reference 2[nd] read above, the Director General ofPolice, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has stated that the Hon’bleHigh Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad have taken a seriousview of interference of police in civil disputes and directed theState Government to issue necessary instructions laying downclear modalities in order to see that immediate relief is given tothe victim and appropriate action is taken against the erringpolice officer where police interference in civil disputes isestablished. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad, while submitting a detailed report has requested fornecessary orders in the matter.

2. In spite of clear instructions in APPM Vol-1 in orderNo.322-1 and specific instructions from the office of the DirectorGeneral of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, from time to timein the matter, many instances of Police Officers interfering in civildisputes are brought to the notice of the Government.

3. Government, after careful examination of the matter andkeeping in view the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, videreference 1[st] read above hereby constitute the followingcommittees to monitor the cases of interference of police in civildisputes.

District Level Committees

1) Inspector General of Police/Deputy

General of Police or Police of the Range concerned –Chairman

2) Superintendent of Police concerned - Member

3) Officer on Special Duty concerned - Member Committee at Commissionerate Level a ) For Police Commissionerates Visakhapatnam andVijayawada:

1) Commissioner of Police concerned - Chairman

2) Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned - Member

3) Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned

- Member

b) For Police Commissionerate, Hyderabad :

1) Commissioner of Police - Chairman

2) Additional Commissioner of Police, Co-ordination - Member

3) Additional Commissioner of Police, Crimes - Member

c) For Police Commissionerate, Cyberabad :

1) Commissioner of Police - Chairman 2) Deputy Commissioner of Police, Admn. - Member

3) Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes - Member

4. The above Committees, on receipt of complaints onPolice interference in civil disputes, should immediately enquireinto the matter not later than 15 days from the date of receipt ofthe complaint in this regard. During the process of enquiry thecomplainant shall be heard and so also, the officer against whomsuch a complaint is made. After such enquiry, if the complaint isnot substantiated the matter shall be closed. Wherever policeinterference in civil disputes is established, the committeesshould process the proposals to the appropriate authority forconsequential action on the erring police personnel.

5. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad is requested to take necessary further actionaccordingly and also see that the orders are implementedscrupulously.”

On a consideration of the above noted G.O., this Court issatisfied that the State Government has eventually realized theseriousness of the situation arising out of police interference incivil disputes and has at last taken certain remedial measures byevolving a methodology to arrest this serious evil. It is, however,noticed from the said G.O. that the procedure for setting inmotion the complaints by the aggrieved parties has not been laiddown therein. It is, therefore, felt necessary to broadly indicate the procedure to be adopted as under. The Director General of Police shall issue a Circular containing the following aspects:

1) Giving due publicity to create awareness in the general publicabout the existence of the G.O.about the existence of the G.O.

2) As a part of this, a permanent notice in every Police Station invernacular language is displayed at prominent place with theprinted proforma of the complaint being made available at thePolice Station along with a complaint box.vernacular language is displayed at prominent place with theprinted proforma of the complaint being made available at thePolice Station along with a complaint box.

3) The complainant shall be allowed to put the complaint in thecomplaint box which shall be cleared at reasonable intervals ofnot less than twice a week by the police personnel entrustedwith this task and sent to the office of the Superintendent ofPolice concerned, which shall, in turn, place the same beforethe Committee, as early as possible.complaint box which shall be cleared at reasonable intervals ofnot less than twice a week by the police personnel entrustedwith this task and sent to the office of the Superintendent ofPolice concerned, which shall, in turn, place the same beforethe Committee, as early as possible.

4) The Circular shall, inter alia, also provide for the aggrievedpersons to directly send the complaints to the office of theSuperintendent of Police in case they are not allowed to placethe complaints in the complaint box by the Police personnel ofthe concerned station.persons to directly send the complaints to the office of theSuperintendent of Police in case they are not allowed to placethe complaints in the complaint box by the Police personnel ofthe concerned station.

The above proposed circular shall be issued at the earliestpossible and report compliance to this Court on or before 27-12-2010. The Registry shall post the case for compliance on 30-12-2010.

__________________________

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J

Date: 10-11-2010AM

ORDER: “On being mentioned”

At the hearing, Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned Special GovernmentPleader representing the learned Advocate General, placed before this Court, copy of Circular Memo dated 30.11.2010 issued in pursuance ofthe final order dated 10.11.2010 passed in this writ petition laying downthe procedural guidelines in the matter of receipt of complaints from theaggrieved parties in cases of Police interference in civil disputes.

A perusal of the said Circular Memo shows that these guidelinesare in parimateria with those suggested by this Court in theabovementioned order. This Court is accordingly satisfied that therespondents have complied with the directions given by this Court.

The Writ Petition is accordingly closed by directing that theCircular Memo dated 30.11.2010 shall form part of the record of this case.

As a sequel to closure of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.7044 and8573 of 2010 are dismissed as infructuous.

________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

31[st] December, 2010GHN