IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.33369 of 2014 BETWEEN Ahmed Faseehudin Iqbal and others.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. B. SANTOSH SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioners complain that their request dated 29.09.2014 for police protection is not being considered by respondents 1 to 5, which include the State of Telangana, the Director General of Police, the Commissioner of Police, the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer, Nallakunta Police Station and copy marked to other officials.
2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has received instructions from the Sub-Inspector of Police of the fifth respondent police station stating that the petitioner had earlier lodged a complaint, which was registered as Cr.No.207 of 2013 on 11.10.2013, in which investigation was made and charge sheet was filed, which is presently taken up by the IV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as C.C.No.949 of 2013 against the accused/eighth respondent herein. It is also stated that the petitioners filed a suit, O.S.No.508 of 2013 against the private party respondents herein seeking perpetual injunction and the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad granted a decree in favour of the petitioners. To the extent of petitioners’ complaint is concerned, it is stated that no such complaint is received with the fifth respondent police station till date. It is, further, stated that the dispute between the petitioners and the private party respondents appear to be of civil nature, as the private party respondents also appear to have filed a suit O.S.No.397 of 2014 before the Junior Civil Judge at Hyderabad.
3. Though the name of the Court where the suit is filed by the private party respondents is not mentioned, petitioners appear to be aware of the said suit, as the learned counsel for the petitioners states that they are taking appropriate steps to defend the said suit. However, it is evident from the instructions, referred to above, that the petitioners already obtained a decree from the competent Court in O.S.No.508 of 2013 and if the said decree is violated, it is for the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the Court granting the decree by making an appropriate application. So far as complaint of the petitioners is concerned, since no such complaint is received by the fifth respondent police station, it cannot be said that there is any inaction on the part of the fifth respondent, which is jurisdictional police station. If the petitioners seek any such order as to protection, they must approach the jurisdictional police station and make a written complaint/request. Petitioners are, therefore, at liberty to make appropriate complaint/request, as aforesaid, by approaching the fifth respondent police station and if such complaint/request is made, the fifth respondent shall deal with the same in accordance with law and take appropriate necessary action as it deserves.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 10, 2014 DSK