THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.5473 of 2010 Date : 10-11-2010 Between : Smt.Farhat Begum w/o.Naseeruddin Hasmi Represented by her General Power of Attorney, Chandra Bobby Abeze .. Petitioner And The Inspector of Police, Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Ahmed Khan Counsel for respondents : Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, Special Government Pleader The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of property bearing municipal No.10-3- 299/4, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad in violation of order passed in I.A.No.13/2010 in O.S.No.139/2010 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner has averred that he is the owner of property bearing municipal No.10-3-299/4, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad, that when some of his relatives sought to grab the said property, he filed O.S.No.139/2010 in the Court of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein an order of injunction has been granted in I.A.No.13/2010. The petitioner alleged that to overreach the said order of injunction, his adversaries approached respondent No.1 who in turn summoned the petitioner to Police Station and gave him an ultimatum that if the petitioner does not allow his relatives to occupy the property, a criminal case will be foisted against him. The petitioner further submitted that against the said unlawful conduct of respondent No.1, he has approached respondent No.2 and that the same has not yielded any result. The petitioner 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 Samsuddin s/o.Nizamuddin filed a complaint against Chandra Bobby Abeze, General Power of Attorney of the petitioner, to the effect that the said person tried to dispossess the complainant from the above mentioned house and that on the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.24/10 under Sections 448, 352, 341, 506 r/w. Section 34 IPC was registered on 23-1-2010 against the G.P.A. of the petitioner and some others. It is further stated that investigation into the said crime is pending and the allegation of interference in civil disputes is stoutly denied. When this Writ Petition came up for admission and hearing, this Court has taken serious notice of the innumerable complaints being received by this Court by way of Writ Petitions pertaining to police interference in civil disputes. This Court has further noticed that despite pronouncements by it, the complaints of police interference in civil disputes continued unabated. On 10-3-2010, this Court passed the following order : “The Director General of Police is impleaded suo motu as respondent No.3. The instances of Police interference in civil disputes appear to continue unabated. A series of cases being received by this Court day in and day out bears testimony for this fact. On earlier occasions, this Court expressed its disapproval in no uncertain terms when the Police interfered with the civil disputes. This has led to issuance of certain Circulars by the Director General of Police instructing the Police Officers to refrain from interfering in civil disputes. But, these Circulars appear to be observed more in breach, if the countless number of cases that are being filed before the Court is any indication. Therefore, the Director General of Police shall file his personal affidavit explaining to the Court the measures taken for implementation of the Circulars issued by his office on the Police interference in civil disputes. The affidavit should indicate the number of cases detected involving Police interference in civil disputes and the action taken against the erring Police officers.” The case has undergone several adjournments thereafter and the Director General of Police has filed his personal affidavit. During the hearing, this Court has suggested that in order to prevent recurrence of the incidents of police interference in civil disputes it would be appropriate to evolve an appropriate mechanism whereby such complaints are properly attended to, relief is provided to the victims of police interference wherever such allegations are found true and appropriate disciplinary action taken against the erring police officers. Today, at the hearing, Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General, has placed before the Court G.O.Ms.No.288, Home (PS & C.A2) Department, dated 6-11-2010. It would be appropriate to reproduce contents of the G.O. herein below: “In the reference 2nd read above, the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has stated that the Hon’ble High Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad have taken a serious view of interference of police in civil disputes and directed the State Government to issue necessary instructions laying down clear modalities in order to see that immediate relief is given to the victim and appropriate action is taken against the erring police officer where police interference in civil disputes is established. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, while submitting a detailed report has requested for necessary orders in the matter. 2. In spite of clear instructions in APPM Vol-1 in order No.322-1 and specific instructions from the office of the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, from time to time in the matter, many instances of Police Officers interfering in civil disputes are brought to the notice of the Government. 3. Government, after careful examination of the matter and keeping in view the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, vide reference 1st read above hereby constitute the following committees to monitor the cases of interference of police in civil disputes. 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 and Vijayawada: 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 on Police interference in civil disputes, should immediately enquire into the matter not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of the complaint in this regard. During the process of enquiry the complainant shall be heard and so also, the officer against whom such a complaint is made. After such enquiry, if the complaint is not substantiated the matter shall be closed. Wherever police interference in civil disputes is established, the committees should process the proposals to the appropriate authority for consequential action on the erring police personnel. 5. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary further action accordingly and also see that the orders are implemented scrupulously.” On a consideration of the above noted G.O., this Court is satisfied that the State Government has eventually realized the seriousness of the situation arising out of police interference in civil disputes and has at last taken certain remedial measures by evolving a methodology to arrest this serious evil. It is, however, noticed from the said G.O. that the procedure for setting in motion the complaints by the aggrieved parties has not been laid down 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 public about the existence of the G.O. 2) As a part of this, a permanent notice in every Police Station in vernacular language is displayed at prominent place with the printed proforma of the complaint being made available at the Police Station along with a complaint box. 3) The complainant shall be allowed to put the complaint in the complaint box which shall be cleared at reasonable intervals of not less than twice a week by the police personnel entrusted with this task and sent to the office of the Superintendent of Police concerned, which shall, in turn, place the same before the Committee, as early as possible. 4) The Circular shall, inter alia, also provide for the aggrieved persons to directly send the complaints to the office of the Superintendent of Police in case they are not allowed to place the complaints in the complaint box by the Police personnel of the concerned station. The above proposed circular shall be issued at the earliest possible 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: 10-11-2010 AM ORDER: “On being mentioned” At the hearing, Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General, placed before this Court, copy of Circular Memo dated 30.11.2010 issued in pursuance of the final order dated 10.11.2010 passed in this writ petition laying down the procedural guidelines in the matter of receipt of complaints from the aggrieved parties in cases of Police interference in civil disputes. A perusal of the said Circular Memo shows that these guidelines are in pari materia with those suggested by this Court in the abovementioned order. This Court is accordingly satisfied that the respondents have complied with the directions given by this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed by directing that the Circular 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 and 8573 of 2010 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st December, 2010 GHN