IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.24209 of 2004 Between: Awad Bin Abood Sayeedi, S/o. Abood Bin Awad Sayeedi, R/o. 18-7-212/30/24/14, Jahangir Nagar, Talab Katta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General Of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force (South Zone) Chattabazar, Hyderabad. 3 Iqbal Siddiqui, Inspector of Police, Bhavani Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order of direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the police in violating the law with regard to the manner of arrest, in using Third Degree Methodson petitioner arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law, in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 20,21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in D.K Basu Vs. State of West Bengal 1977 1 SCC 416 = AIR 1997 SC 610 and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.RAVICHANDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.24209 of 2004 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in a murder case for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in the year 1998 by the Kamatipura Police Station and the same was ended in acquittal. Thereafter, he was falsely implicated in a dacoity case in the year 1999 by the Charminar Police Station and the same was also ended in acquittal. Subsequently, he was implicated in a murder case of one Basheeruddin and the same is pending trial before the II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hydeabad. In view of the same, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner. While so, the Police Moghalpura initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 107 and 110 Cr.P.C. and opened an order of “binding over” by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. It is stated that after executing bond on 20-12-2004 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, he went to his house at Jahangir Nagar, under the Bhavani Nagar Police Station, at about 5.30 p.m. At that time, a group of policemen including three Sub-Inspectors of Police and seven Constables came to his house, whisked him away and handed over to the Bhavani Nagar Police Station. It is stated that the 3rd respondent threatened the petitioner that if he does not leave Bhavani Nagar, he would be falsely implicated in a Narcotic case and that he would be detained. It is stated that the 3rd respondent used third degree methods and also beat him with belt, slippers and his elbow. It is stated that the police exceeded their official duties and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the petitioner was arrested on 20-12-2004 and he was produced before XVI Metropolitan Magistrate in Cr.No.145 of 2004 under false charge of offence under the A.P.Gambling Act. Thereafter, he made a statement before XVI Metropolitan Magistrate about the injuries caused to him and he was released on bail. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in violating the law and also in using third degree methods as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. A counter has been filed stating that a case in Cr.No.28 of 1998, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC, and a case in Cr.No.189 of 1998, registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, were ended in acquittal and the petitioner was bound over in three cases i.e., Cr.Nos.51 of 2004, 135 of 2004 and 188 of 2004. Apart from that, a case in Cr.No.145 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Gambling Act, is pending trial. It is stated that a case in Cr.No.67 of 2000 was also pending trial on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. It is stated that according to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manaul, the opening and continuation of the Rowdy Sheet against the petitioner is in consonance with law. It is further stated that on credible information that the petitioner was organizing and playing three cards game of chance by betting money and collecting petty amounts, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhavani Nagar Police Station, obtained search warrant from the 2nd respondent herein and conducted raid on the premises of the petitioner and apprehended the petitioner along with others and seized an amount of Rs.4,450/- and registered a case in Cr.No.145 of 2004 of P.S.Bhavani Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Gambling Act. It is further stated that the police never used any third degree methods and the petitioner was never beaten with belt or slippers by the police. It is stated that had the petitioner been subjected to third degree methods, resorted to by the 3rd respondent, the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate would have certainly referred him for medical examination. The fact that the petitioner was not referred for medical examination itself proves that no third degree methods were adopted by the 3rd respondent. This court while issuing notice before admission on 23-12-2004, directed the petitioner to submit an application before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, seeking appropriate relief. However, no material has been placed before this court as to whether such an application has been made or not. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the police exceeded their official duties or that the third degree methods have been used against the petitioner. Anyhow, the said disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 27-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}