Telangana High Court
Tumma Nishanth vs The State Of Telanagana And 8 Others on 28 December, 2020
Author: P.Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.23793 of 2020
Date: 28.12.2020
Between:
Tumma Nishanth S/o.Tumma Ramesh
Aged about 36 years, occ: Business,
R/o.H.No.1-5-95/3, Sri Lakshmi Nagar Colony,
Old Alwal IG statute, Secunderabad-500010,
Hyderabad.
Permanent R/o.UNIC city,
Block 8, Gadginagar, Bidi Gurkul,
Hyderabad road, Sholapur,
Maharastra-413006.
.....Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Telangana Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others.
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
-2-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.23793 of 2020
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
2. This writ petition is filed alleging that respondent Nos 7 and 8 have dragged and arrested the petitioner without following guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal1 and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2 and such action of respondents is arbitrary, biased, against principles of natural justice and consequently seeks declaration that his detention is illegal and he to be compensated.
3. The facts as narrated in the affidavit and material papers enclosed to the writ petition disclose that on 27.12.2019 Smt. T.Gayatri Devi, wife of petitioner lodged complaint with the Pet Basheerabad police alleging that petitioner married her on 05.11.2008. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs was given towards dowry and a factory in Siricilla Textile Park was also given. They are blessed with a child. By this time, complainant was blessed with son from previous marriage and petitioner was aware of this fact. But, later, she was tortured and subjected to cruelty by the petitioner, mother-in-law and father-in- law and sister-in-law. The said complaint was registered on 27.12.2019 as crime No.991 of 2019 under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On 01.10.2020, another complaint was lodged with Kamareddy Police. In this 1 1997(1) SCC 416 2 (2014)8 SCC 273 -3- complaint, the complainant, wife of the petitioner alleges that her husband was harassing her on phone numbers mentioned in the complaint to withdraw the earlier complaint or he would post their close relationship photos, which were taken cunningly, in Whatsapp, Face book and Instagram by creating fake I.D. Therefore, requested to take action. Based on said crime, crime No.344 of 2020 was registered on 01.10.2020 under Sections 420 and 354 (D) of IPC.
4. When the investigation into crime No.991 of 2019 was in progress, petitioner was living in Hyderabad and by the time second complaint was registered, he was living in Sholapur in the Maharashtra State. In this writ petition, petitioner alleges that after registration of crime No.991 of 2019, in Janauary and February, 2020, police of Pet Basheerabad has raided the house of petitioner at 12.00 midnight and created scene. Police shouted in high pitch voice asking for petitioner whereabouts, threatened the inmates to harass them and to treat them with third degree methods and abused them in filthy language. In paragraph No.11 of affidavit, petitioner alleges that Kompally police personnel were in drunken condition and created nuisance and after about two hours, they left the place. It is further alleges that in the third week of January, police have once again raided the house of petitioner and between 3 pm to 6 pm, they created lot of hardship and trouble and taken his phone and abused him in most filthy language without even caring for ladies. In paragraph Nos 9 and 10 in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, petitioner alleges that Kamareddy police raided his house at about 2.30 am i.e. on the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd October, 2020 in drunken -4- condition lifted the petitioner to the local police station in Maharashtra State, objected by his parents and younger sister-in- law for about 45 minutes, created lot of troubles, searched the whole house, as if he is a terrorist. The police behaved rudely with petitioner and his parents and ladies and abused him in most filthy language. It is further alleged that on 02.10.2020, according to petitioner, respondent No.8 who is the Sub-Inspector of police, Kamareddy accompanied by two constables of Kamareddy Police Station, in addition to three constables from local police station in the state of Maharashtra, Sholapur have raided the house.
5. Based on these averments, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and Commissioner of Police, Kamareddy ought to have taken action against respondent Nos 7 and 8 who were working under the control of these commissionerates on the incidents that took place, as averred in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, and therefore, in this writ petition, petitioner seeks prayer briefly noted earlier.
6. On written instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submits that after investigation into crime No.991 of 2019, charge sheet was filed in the Court XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal and said Magistrate took cognizance of offence and petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.299 of 2020. He further submits that after completing the investigation into crime No.344 of 2020, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy and said Magistrate took cognizance of the crime and petitioner is facing -5- trial in C.C.No.638 of 2020. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader to investigate into crime No.344 of 2020, as petitioner was living in Sholapur in State of Maharashtra, permission was obtained to depute constables for investigation purpose and accordingly permission was obtained on 07.10.2020. Constables bearing identification numbers 1770 and 2447 were deputed to Sholapur on 10.11.2020 and on 11.10.2020 notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued. Based on these events, learned Assistant Government Pleader sought to contend that there was no occasion for the police to visit the residence of the petitioner on the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd October, 2020.
7. Court is not expressing any opinion on the manner in which police stated to have conducted investigation and filed charge sheet and it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law.
8. The only aspect requires consideration at this stage is, whether the prayer sought by the petitioner can be granted.
9. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the narration of events in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition would clearly point out that due to highhanded behaviour of police, fundamental rights of the petitioner are affected and therefore, action has to be taken against the police officials.
10. No doubt, fundamental rights of citizens are sacrosanct. No person, including the police, can impinge right to life, liberty and privacy of a citizen without following due process of law. The constitutional Courts are endowed by the Constitution to protect fundamental rights of the citizens. However, what is required to be -6- noticed in the instant writ petition is, while petitioner makes allegation on the aspect of police illegally interfering in life, liberty and privacy of petitioner and his family members putting pressure on the family members and using abusive language etc., he or his family members have not lodged complaint with the local police, immediately after alleged incidents took place nor petitioner filed complaints with the controlling authority, but straightaway writ petition is filed and in the writ petition, petitioner is making allegations of abuse of power and authority by respondent Nos 7 and 8.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home sought to point out that as investigation was completed long ago, the question of Pet Basheerabad police visiting the house of the petitioner in Sholapur did not arise. He also sought to contend that only two police constables were deputed to Sholapur after getting permission on 07.10.2020. Therefore, the allegation that the Sub-Inspector along with constables visiting Sholapur residence of petitioner on the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd October, 2020 is not correct. The Court is not expressing any opinion on these aspects. Admittedly, petitioner has not ventilated his grievance against the manner in which the subordinate police officers have conducted investigation and violated the fundamental rights of petitioner before the cadre controlling authority, but straightaway this writ petition is filed. What is alleged require verification of facts. Without availing such remedy, straightaway writ petition is filed. In the facts of this case, it is premature for this Court to go into these aspects. The Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
-7-
12. Granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as available in law on the alleged grievance as ventilated in the writ petition, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 28th December, 2020.
Nvl -8- HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23793 of 2020 Date:28.12.2020 Nvl