S D RAJA BABU CHOWDARY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-41
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 09,1992

SUNKARA DURGA RAJA BABU CHOWDARY Appellant
VERSUS
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIME INVESTIGATION AGENCY, BHIVANI TOWN, STATE OF HARYANA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RE.NATHAN [REFERRED TO]
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR VS. KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Immaneni Panduranga Rao, j. - (1.)This is a petition filed for writ of Mandamus alleging that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No. ATR 4237 having a National permit; that the said lorry was hired by the 3rd respondent who is a transport contractor for Brooke Bond India Limited; that while booking a consignment of Tea from Gauhati to Bangalore on 28-9-90, the 3rd respondent has not taken insurance policy though his firm has collected the Insurance premium from Brooke bond India. Limited; that when the lorry reached Rajanagaram, it had accidentally caught fire destroying the lorry as well as the goods; that the 3rd respondent won over the Police machinery at Rajanagaram and got a false case foisted against him under Section 407 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code which is pending before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry as CC.No.52 of 1990; that the 3rd respondent came to Vijayawada along with the police and began coercing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,85,000/- towards the cost of the Tea lost in the accident; that thereupon the brother of the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court and frustrated the efforts of the 3rd respondent to extract money from the petitioner; that bearing grudge, the 3rd respondent has set up the 2nd respondent and got another false case registered against him as Crime No. 13 of 1991 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhiwani, making false allegations; that his brother who was shown as the principal accused was at Gudiwada on 18-12-90 on which date the offence is alleged to have taken place; that the Police have arrested the brother of the petitioner on 24-1-91 at his house at Gudiwada and forcibly sought to take him to Haryana at Gun-point; that with great difficulty his brother's friends and the petitioner could ensure the production of his brother before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, who has remanded the petitioner's brother to judicial custody; that his brother filed a writ of habeas-corpus in W.P. No. 1686 / 91 challenging his detention in connection with Crime No. 13 / 91; that the proceedings in Crime No. 13 / 91 are initiated with male fides and are initiated only with a view to extract money from the petitioner and his brother and that there is every danger of the petitioner being hurt or done to death if he is permitted to be arrested by the 1st respondent in connection with Crime No.13 of 1991.
(2.)The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced common arguments in this writ petition and in Writ Petition No. 1686 / 91 filed by the brother of the petitioner and argued that for the same reasons the petitioner is entitled for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein not to arrest him within the territorial limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh in connection with Crime No.13 of 1991 on the file of 1st respondent.
(3.)The facts referred to above only show that the petitioner apprehending arrest by the 1st respondent has filed this petition. While doing so he has made a deliberate attempt to narrate false and misleading facts with regard to the arrest of his brother by alleging in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the 1st respondent on 24-1-91 forcibly sought to take his brother to Haryana at gun-point; that on coming to know of this, when his brother's friends at Vijayawada insisted on the production of petitioner's brother before a local Magistrate, he was paraded with hand cuffs at Vijayawada; and that ultimately with great difficulty the friends of the petitioner's brother and the petitioner could ensure the production of his brother before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, who has remanded his brother to judicial custody on condition of his being produced at Bhiwani on 31-1-91. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner's brother in support of W.P. No. 1686 / 91 the alleged threat of 1st respondent at gun-point and forcibly seeking to take the petitioner's brother to Haryana are not pleaded. On the other hand, it is only pleaded that on 24-1-91 during early hours the 1st respondent and his staff came to his house at Gudiwada and forcibly took him by car to Vijayawada; that there he was paraded in the streets of Vijayawada by hand cuffing and that at Vijayawada he was produced before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate. The allegations that the 1st respondent sought to take the petitioner's brother to Haryana at gun-point and that on the insistence of the production of petitioner's brother before a local Magistrate the petitioner's brother was paraded with hand cuffs in the streets of Vijayawada and mat with great difficulty the friends of the petitioner's brother and the petitioner could ensure production of his brother before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, in our view, are deliberate inventions by the petitioner for the purpose of this petition and in order to obtain interim directions preventing the respondents from arresting the petitioner within the territorial limits of State of Andhra Pradesh.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.