Prem Kumar Sharma, vs State Of Telangana,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3812 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                   WRIT PETITION No.29636 of 2018
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the highhanded and illegal

action of the police officials of Charminar Police Station in getting the

petitioners evicted from the shop bearing M.No.21-1-648, Rikab Gunj,

Hyderabad, by force, threat and coercion and by illegally detaining

them as illegal, without jurisdiction and abuse of power.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are tenants of the

subject premises having taken the premises on lease from the

respondent No.5 in the year 1991 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-.

At the time of taking the premises on lease, Rs.65,000/- was paid as

good will. There were misunderstandings between the petitioners and

the respondent No.5. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 and 12 others

filed R.C.No.440 of 2003 before the Principal Rent Controller,

Hyderabad seeking enhancement of rent and they also filed

R.C.No.349 of 2003 before the IV Additional Rent Controller,

Hyderabad seeking eviction of the petitioners. R.C.No.440 of 2003 was

allowed by order dated 17.12.2007 fixing the rent at the rate of

Rs.6,405/-. The petitioner No.1 filed preferred an appeal in

R.A.No.18of 2008 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court,

Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 08.02.2011.

CRP.No.946 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner No.1 challenging the

judgment dated 08.02.2011. CRP was admitted and interim stay was

granted vide order dated 25.03.2011 and the petitioner No.1 had been

paying 50% of the enhanced rent, apart from original rent of Rs.800/-.

R.C.No.349 of 2003 was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2004

rejecting the plea of bonafide requirement. R.A.No.145 of 2014 filed

by the landlord was dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes

Court, Hyderabad by judgment dated 19.09.2017. The landlords did

not prefer any revision and thus, the order in R.A.No.145 of 2014

became final.

3. While so, the respondents No.5 and 6 hatched a plan to

forcefully evict the petitioners from the subject premises with the aid

of police. One Bheem Chand filed a suit for specific performance of

agreement of sale against Smt. Kamala Bai, the mother of the

respondent No.5, in respect of the subject premises in O.S.No.497 of

2015 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad. When the said suit was coming for argument of the

defendant, on 13.07.2018 at about 4 PM, about to 7 to 8 policemen

from Charminar Police Station came to the shop and asked the

petitioners to come to the police station. They went to the police

station. They were made to sit in the visitor room for few hours.

Later, at about 7 PM, they were taken to the room of the ACP in the

first floor. They were made to sit and ACP made some signal to the SI

and CI, who were already present in the room. Immediately, the SI

came forward and hit the petitioner No.1 on the backside of the neck

asking why they are not vacating the shop and asked who is Bheem

Chand and sent them to ground floor. At about 11 PM, the petitioner

No.2 was asked to come to SI cabin and was asked as to who

prepared the agreement in the name of Bheem Chand and was beaten

on his hand with leather belt for about one hour. The respondents

No.5 and 6 came to the police station around 12 midnight to 1 AM,

met the SI and went away staring to them. Again in the night of

14.07.2018, they were called to the CI room and they were asked to

hand over the shop to the owners within one hour to enable the police

to release them or else they will not be released and will be taken on

remand.

4. It is further stated that unable to bear the pressure of police and

illegal detention and also due to ill-health, the petitioners accepted to

vacate the subject premises, though Court judgments were in their

favour. The police took the petitioners to the shop around 4.30 to 5.00

AM on 15.07.2018 and removed gaddis and some cartons of sarees

from the shop. The rest of the racks and other material were left in the

shop. They were forced to sign on some typed and blank papers as if

the petitioners had voluntarily surrendered the shop by vacating it on

their own. The matter was prepared by the police. Any papers showing

that the petitioners had voluntarily surrendered the shop were under

pressure, by force and threat exerted on them by the police of

Charminar Police Station. It is further stated that after signing the

papers and taking away some material from the shop, the petitioners

were set free at about 6 AM on 15.07.2018. Later, they came to know

that the suit for specific performance, filed by Bheem Chand, was

withdrawn. As the eviction case filed by the landlords was dismissed,

there was no question of petitioners handing over the possession of

the premises voluntarily. The police without registering any FIR and

without revealing to the petitioners as to what was the complaint

made against them, got them signed some papers and forcefully

evicted the petitioners from the tenanted shop.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 the

allegations made in the writ petition were denied. It was stated that a

complaint was lodged by the respondent No.5 on 23.06.2015 stating

that the petitioner No.1 and Bheem Chand omitted offence of cheating

and created forged document in respect of the premises bearing

No.21-1-648, Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad. Cr.No.119 of 2015 was

registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined. Notices

under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. were issued to the accused persons.

The investigation revealed that the petitioners (A1 and A2) along with

A3 (Bheem Chand) created false and fabricated document. Charge

sheet was filed and the case was registered in C.C.no.731 of 2018 in

the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,

Hyderabad. The allegation of the petitioners that they were threatened

and forced to deliver possession of the subject premises to the

landlord is false and incorrect.

6. In the counter filed by the respondents No.5 and 6, it is stated

that Bheem Chandn filed a suit for specific performance on the

strength of forged and fabricated document. A complaint was lodged

by them and the same was registered as Cr.No.119 of 2015. As per

the confessional statement of Bheem Chand, the documents were

created in respect of the shop in question and Bheem Chand in

connivance with the petitioners herein had forged the documents and

filed the suit. On the basis of the confessional statement of Bheem

Chand, the petitioners were arrayed as A2 and A3. The investigation

was carried on by the police and FSL report received by the police

opined that the original document was forged and fabricated.

After receiving notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C on 13.07.2018, the

petitioners approached the respondents and their family members for

settling the matter amicably and received a sum of Rs,.10,00,000/-

and delivered possession of the subject premises under letter dated

14.07.2018. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they were

forcefully evicted from the subject premises is incorrect. The suit in

O.S.No.497 of 2015 was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners have

voluntarily vacated the subject premises.

7. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel for

the petitioners, Mr. Ruprendra Mahendra, learned counsel for the

respondents No.5 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home.

8. From the above sequence of events, this Court is of the opinion

that there are several disputed questions of fact, which cannot be

adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. The filing of complaint, registration of FIR, receipt of notices

under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and charge sheet filed therein are not

disputed by the petitioners. So also the filing of suit and FSL report in

Cr.No.119 of 2015 that the suit agreement of sale is forged is also not

disputed by the petitioners. It is also a fact that the suit was dismissed

as withdrawn.

9. In the above circumstances, it is difficult to accept the

contention of the petitioners that they were forced to sign the

document and hand over possession of the subject premises. Though

the petitioners are not parties to the specific performance suit in

O.S.No.497 of 2015, it is not denied that they are co-accused in

Cr.No.119 of 2015. Therefore, it cannot be held that the police have

exceeded their jurisdiction and compelled the petitioners to deliver

possession of the subject premises to the respondents No.5 and 6.

There are no merits in the writ petition.

The writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions,

if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J November 29, 2021 DSK