HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3111 OF 2010 Date: 12th July 2010 Between: Huda Saroornagar Commercial Complex Shops Lessees Association, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, rep. by its General Secretary. … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3111 OF 2010 ORDER: The Lessees Association of HUDA Saroornagar Commercial Complex, represented by its Secretary, has filed this writ petition, seeking to declare the action of respondents in registering a case against them in Crime No.178 of 2010 on the file of P.S.Saroornagar for the offence under Section 353 of IPC, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent-Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) has constructed a shopping complex at Saroornagar and some shops constructed in the complex, were allotted to individuals on ‘first come first serve’ basis, in the year 1981. It is stated that when HUDA terminated their leases, the Association of tenants approached the Civil Court and filed a suit in O.S.No.434 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, R.R. District, in which, respondents 3 to 5 herein have filed their written statement. It is also stated that in one of the Civil Suits in O.S.No.636 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District, filed by one Sri Ch.Kesava Reddy, the owner of shop No.24, perpetual injunction orders are granted. It is stated in the affidavit that on 7th of February 2010, respondents 4 and 5 came to the site along with their workmen and Police force and started dismantling the first floor of the complex. Then the members of the petitioner-Association represented about the injunction orders and requested them not to take any action. It is stated that inspite of the same, a false complaint is filed by respondents 4 and 5, which is registered in Crime No.178 of 2010 for the offence under Section 353 of IPC, against the members of the petitioner- Association. Mainly, the registration of crime is questioned on the ground that there is no truth in the said complaint. The 1st respondent-Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, has filed a detailed counter affidavit. A separate counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent-authority. In the counter affidavits, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner-Association, it is stated that on 07.02.2010, a complaint was lodged by the Administrative Officer of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, stating that while he was discharging his official duties as per the instructions given by the superior officers and demolition of the complex was in progress, some inmates of the complex attacked him from behind and prevented him from discharging his official duties and driven him out of the complex by hurling stones at him, and he made a request to take action as per law. It is submitted that basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.178 of 2010 was registered for the offence under Section 353 of IPC on 7th February 2010, and the investigation was entrusted to the Inspector of Police. It is further stated that in the process of investigation, four witnesses, including the complainant, were examined and their detailed statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is stated that all the witnesses have supported the version of the complainant and corroborated the facts mentioned in the First Information Report. It is stated that at that stage, the petitioner-Association approached this Court, and in view of the interim orders obtained by the said Association, further investigation is stopped. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the matters were pending in Civil Courts, but such suits are confined only to the validity of termination notices issued by the officers of HUDA for vacation of the premises. In the complaint, dated 7th February 2010, it is the specific allegation of the Administrative Officer that when he was discharging his duties as per the instructions of his superior officers by undertaking the demolition of building, there was an attack on him and he was prevented from discharging his official duties and he was driven out from the complex by hurling stones. When such is the case, based on the complaint of such officer, a case is registered in Crime No.178 of 2010 for the offence under Section 353 of IPC. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the said complaint is false and is a designed one, but it is a matter for investigation by the Police. When such investigation is pending, it is not for this Court to examine the correctness or otherwise of the contents of the complaint. As it is stated that some of the witnesses are already examined, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent-Police to complete the investigation by examining the remaining witnesses. Further, taking into account the fact that this Court, by an order, dated 11th February 2010, granted directions staying the investigation, I deem it appropriate to further direct the respondents not to arrest the petitioners till appropriate final report is filed. It is also open for the respondents to take steps in accordance with law, after filing of final report before the competent Court. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th July 2010 ajr