Syed Zafar Hassan Razvi S/O Syed Hassan Razvi, v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.30701 of 2014 ORDER:

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2.

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:- "... to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal acts of the respondents 6 to 9 in forcing the petitioner to compromise the civil dispute in the police station on the influence of the unofficial respondents 10 to 13 in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.22-3-94, Dareecha Mata, Outside Dabeerpura, Hyderabad is arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted and uncalled for and in violation of the rules guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently restrain the respondent police from illegally interfering into petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing Municipal No.22-3-94, Dareecha Mata, Outside Dabeerpura, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3.

Learned Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mir Chowk Police Station, Hyderabad.

4.

From a perusal of the said written instructions, it is revealed that one Mr.Syed Raza Ali i.e., the 10th respondent herein, lodged a complaint on 13.09.2014 with the 6th respondent stating that he acquired property bearing Municipal No.22-3-94 situated at Dareecha Mata, outside the Dabeerpura, Hyderabad, from his ancestors. The petitioner herein interfered with his possession in the above said property, created nuisance and threatened with dire consequences. Therefore, the 10th respondent requested the police to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the 6th respondent entered the

PKR, J W.P.No.30701 of 2014 same in the General Diary on 13.09.2014. During the course of enquiry, it was revealed that there was a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 10 to 13 with regard to the subject property. The 10th respondent and others filed a suit in O.S.No.468 of 2014 for partition and the same is pending consideration. Since the matter is civil in nature, the respondent police suggested the complainant to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Again on 11.10.2014 some quarrels took place between the petitioner and the 10th respondent and his wife. In this connection, the 6th respondent received a complaint through 100 Dial. Accordingly, the police visited the spot and booked two petty cases vide Consecutive Nos.4494 of 2014 and 4495 of 2014 under Section 70(B) of C.P.Act.

It is also further mentioned that the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent police snatched away the cell phone of the petitioner's wife is totally false and baseless. The said allegation is created for the purpose of filing the present writ petition. The allegation of the petitioner that the respondent police interfered and forced the petitioner to compromise the civil dispute in the police station on the influence of the un-official respondents 10 to 13 with regard to the subject property is also incorrect and baseless. The respondent police have not taken the signatures of the petitioner on different papers and threatened the petitioner not to complain the higher officials or else the petitioner will be implicated in false cases and would be killed is also specifically denied.

PKR, J W.P.No.30701 of 2014 in the written instructions that from the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the material papers, it is revealed that there was a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 10 to 13 with regard to the subject property, for which the police have nothing to do with it. The petitioner unnecessarily involving the police into the civil litigation. The respondent police never harassed, threatened and interfered with the life and liberty and civil disputes of the petitioner with regard to the subject property at any point of time.

5.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 19th December 2019 mar