IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.23484 of 2009 Between: T.Kishore. … Petitioner And: The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District and others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.Kanaka Sundar. Counsel for the Respondent: AGP for Home for R.1 to R.3. None for R.4. This 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 life and liberty of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a declaration that seizure of R.C. book of Santro Car bearing No.AP.31AW 7074, belonging to him, as illegal and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. I have heard Sri D.Kanaka Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner claims to be a Software Engineer in Visakhapatnam. His brother-Sri T.Pradeep Kumar is an accused in two criminal cases, registered under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the alleged dishonour of cheques. The petitioner alleged that on 18-10-2009 at about 6-00 PM one constable, by name, Narayana Rao, and two others came to his house and took him away to III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, where respondent No.1 detained him in the Police lockup till 11 PM., without registering a case. The petitioner further alleged that at about 11 PM., respondent No.1 called him to his chamber and asked him to bring his brother- T.Pradeepkumar to Police Station in order to settle a financial claim with respondent No.4. When the petitioner is stated to have replied that his brother has gone to Hyderabad to meet his Advocate to give instructions in connection with the criminal petitions pending before this Court, respondent No.1 allegedly abused the petitioner in filthy language and threatened him that if he does not settle the dispute with respondent No.4, all of his family members, will be implicated in several criminal cases in all the Police Stations in Visakhapatnam. The petitioner further stated that respondent No.1 asked him to hand over the R.C. book of his car bearing No. AP.31 AW 7074 and obtained his signatures on four to five white papers. The petitioner further narrated that on the next day, when he was not present at his house, some Police constables came to his house, abused his mother, sister and other family members, who were in the house, and threatened them to implicate in several criminal cases. The petitioner termed the acts of the Police as violative of his fundamental right to freedom and liberty. In response to the notice issued by this Court, Sri P.V.Krishna Varma, Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam-respondent No.1, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that non-bailable warrants issued by the jurisdictional Magistrate against the petitioner’s brother are pending; and that respondent No.1 deputed his staff to the petitioner’s house in order to execute the said non-bailable warrants under the impression that his brother is staying in the petitioner’s house. Respondent No.1 denied rest of the allegations, including the petitioner’s detention in the Police Station and seizure of RC book relating to his Santro car. Respondent No.1 further stated that on 7- 11-2009 at about 12.45 hours, on the reliable information received by his Police Station that car bearing No. AP.31AW 7074 was parked in front of the house of one Sri Palaki Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Ramnarayana, Marine Engineer, who is described as a friend of the petitioner, the Police went there; that as Sri Palaki Venkata Satyanarayana could not produce the relevant documents relating to the said car, they suspected that it might be stolen by him; that they seized the said car under a mediators’ report, arrested the said person and produced him before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (Urban); that the said Magistrate released the said person on bail; and that, later, on production of relevant documents, the said Executive Magistrate passed an order on 6-3-2010 releasing the said car, which was handed over to the petitioner on 8-3-2010 under acknowledgment. Respondent No.1 further averred that to save his brother, the petitioner has leveled baseless allegations against him. The fact that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case is not in dispute. The petitioner’s brother is an accused in certain criminal cases filed under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The specific allegation made by the petitioner is that respondent No.1 interfered with his personal liberty with a view to ensure that the dispute between his brother and respondent No.4 is settled. As usual, in cases of this nature where allegations of illegal interference violating the personal liberty of the citizens are made, the normal defense of the Police is one of denial, respondent No.1 has maintained the same stand. In cases such as this, it is not possible for the victims of Police harassment to adduce direct evidence in support of their allegations. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to embark upon considering the oral evidence of the parties. It is only on considering the circumstances of the case, a prima facie opinion can be expressed by this Court. In the admitted facts of the case, it is not possible to comprehend the stand of respondent No.1 relating to seizure of the car belonging to the petitioner. On respondent No.1’s own showing, the car was found parked at the residence of the petitioner’s friend. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that either he or his subordinate officers have received any complaint about the alleged theft of the car. It is, therefore, incomprehensible that respondent No.1 has entertained a genuine suspicion that the car parked near the house of the petitioner’s friend must have been a stolen one. In the background of the allegations made by the petitioner, I am of the prima facie opinion that seizure of the said car by respondent No.1 cannot be considered as a bonafide act on his part; and this lends credibility to the petitioner’s allegations that with a view to coerce the petitioner to settle the financial claim of respondent No.4 against the petitioner’s brother, respondent No.1 has abused his official position and took custody of the car. I may hasten to add that these are the tentative conclusions arrived at by this Court on the basis of the pleadings and the limited material that is made available before this Court. In recent times, interference by Police in civil disputes has become rampant. The number of cases that are being filed in this Court bears testimony to this undeniable fact. Unfortunately, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot give findings on each of these complaints received by it by way of Writ Petitions. Due to these constraints, this Court is exercising no option other than closing the Writ Petitions by taking into consideration the naive denials of the Police of their interference. Unless the persons at the helm of affairs take a serious view of the complaints made against the Police, the innocent citizens of the State will continue to suffer at the hands of unscrupulous officers, who, instead of protecting the civil rights of the citizens, are found acting detrimental to their interest. The valuable right of citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is blatantly violated by the men in uniform in countless number of cases. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam- respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to hold a detailed enquiry into the serious allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No.1 and see that the instances similar to the one alleged by the petitioner are not repeated. Respondent No.2 shall ensure that the RC book of the petitioner’s car is returned to him if it was seized by respondent No.1 either officially or otherwise. If the allegations made by the petitioner are found correct, respondent No.2 shall initiate disciplinary action against respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 shall submit an action taken report to this Court within a period of two months from today. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Post the Writ Petition on 04-6-2010 for the action taken report of respondent No.2. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22-3-2010 Note: Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam-respondent No.2, forthwith. (BO) MNR