IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11818 of 2009 Between: 1 Mohd Junaid Hussain S/o Mohd Afzal Hussain H.No.20-4-237/2 Khilwat Hyderabad 2 Syed Mahaboobuddin S/o Syed Khaja Moinuddin H.No.8-1-364/A/3/1 Fatima Nagar,Towlichowki Hakimpet,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Police Twin Cities Hyderabad 2 The Asst Commissioner of Police Banjara Hills,West Zone Hyderabad 3 Station House Officer Banjarahills,Hyderabad 4 Syed Omer alias S/o Late Syed Jaffer realtor 5 Kaneez Fatima W/o Syed Omer alias Baber R-4&R-5 H.No.18-1-105/2 Uppaguda,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. G.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5:MR. GHANTA RAMAKRISHNA The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners filed this writ petition for a mandamus to declare the interference of respondent No.2 in the civil litigation and respondent Nos.4 and 5, as illegal. Heard Sri G.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri G.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. There is a dispute in respect of house bearing No.8-1-364/3/1 of Fatima Colony, Tolichowki, Hakimpet, Hyderabad. According to the petitioners, the said property was purchased by them from respondent Nos.4 and 5 and got possession of the same delivered. They claim that while petitioner No.2 is residing in rear portion of the property, petitioner No.1 is running a school known as “Noon High School” in its front portion. As respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not execute the registered sale deeds in respect of two portions of the property despite receiving the entire sale consideration, the petitioners filed two suits, namely, O.S.Nos.147 and 239 of 2009 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of agreements of sale and that the trial Court granted ad interim injunction in favour of petitioner No.2 which is allegedly in force as on today. As respondent Nos.4 and 5 started interfering with the petitioners’ possession, they filed a complaint before respondent No.3 and as no action was taken by the police, they filed a private complaint before III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad and the same was forwarded to respondent No.3 for investigation. Thereupon, Crime No.266 of 2009 was registered on 06.03.2009 against respondent Nos.4 and 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 384, 326, 448 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners alleged that respondent No.3 called them to the police station on 11.06.2009, made them to sit for 3 to 4 hours and threatened them with adverse consequences, if the matter is not settled by them with respondent Nos.4 and 5 by taking back their money and handing over the possession of the property. They further alleged that respondent No.2 came to the petitioners’ property along with his subordinates on 13.06.2009 and illegally detained the school staff, namely, Vice Principal and other staff and threatened them not to give evidence in favour of the petitioners and if they give evidence, they will be arrested and false cases will be registered by using third degree methods. They also alleged that respondent No.2 and his subordinates again came to the house of petitioner No.2 and abused him and his family members in filthy language by threatening them to vacate the premises within 24 hours. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he inter alia stated that on reference made by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, the private complaint of the petitioners was registered as a case in Crime No.266 of 2009 (wrongly mentioned as Crime No.26 of 2009) under Sections 420, 406, 384, 326, 448 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He further stated that on respondent Nos.4 and 5 approaching the superior police officers, on instructions, respondent No.3 registered a case in Crime No.634 of 2009 (wrongly mentioned as Crime No.634 of 2008) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 448, 341, 506 and 509 IPC on 08.06.2009 against the petitioners. He also stated that during the course of investigation, the petitioners, respondent Nos.4 and 5 and other witnesses were called to the Police Station, their statements were recorded and the documents were collected. He alleged that as Crime No.634 of 2009 (wrongly mentioned as Crime No.634 of 2008) was registered against the petitioners, they bore grudge against the answering respondent and levelled false allegations. The answering respondent denied the allegations of his calling the petitioners to police station, detaining them for 4 to 5 hours, threatening them to hand over the property to respondent Nos.4 and 5, visiting their school and house and using filthy language. He stated that he never interfered in the civil litigation. The conduct of respondent No.2 is coming to the adverse notice of this Court in more than one case. This Court in Writ Petition No.20550 of 2008, which was filed with a similar complaint of his interference in civil disputes between two private parties, called for a report from the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and the same is awaited. Respondent No.2 is holding the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, which is higher in rank than the Inspector of Police, who is the Station House Officer. Either the Station House Officer or the Sub-Inspector attached to the police station is invariably the investigating officer. Ordinarily, it is the part of the investigating officer’s duty to examine the parties concerned with the criminal case. Respondent No.2 made a vague statement in the counter that the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were called to the police station and their statements were recorded. He did not specify the officer, who summoned the parties to the police station. The plea of respondent No.2 that the petitioners made false allegations against him bearing grudge for registration of a criminal case against them is not worthy of acceptance, because it is not his pleaded case that he is the one who registered the said case against the petitioners. In paragraph 5, he stated, “on the instructions, the police, Banjara Hills registered the case”. If the petitioners intended to make false allegations, they would have done so against the officer, who registered the case. On the contrary, the entire allegations are made against respondent No.2 alone. While I see no reason for the petitioners to target respondent No.2, the petitioners, who are businessmen with no extraordinary background would not have mustered courage to make false allegations against an officer of the rank of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, as any person of ordinary prudence would know the deleterious consequences that would flow following such a false complaint. The frequent complaints against an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police by public do not augur well for the Police Department, which is a disciplined force. Therefore, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, is directed to consider shifting respondent No.2 to a non-focal post forthwith, so that complaints of this nature will not recur in future. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.15220 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th JULY, 2009. kvni