ANJALI JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S. No.193 of 2008 was filed by a lady tenant of a flat seeking perpetual injunction against her landlord. The said suit was decreed in her favour. O.S. No.295 of 2008 filed by the landlord for eviction of the said lady tenant was dismissed. Thereafter, on the intervening night of 11th and 12th March, 2011, the tenant, (petitioner in this Writ Petition), rushed to the police station complaining of trespass, physical assault, attempt to rape and forcible eviction by the landlord (3rd respondent in this Writ Petition). The Investigating Officer, who visited the apartment building (scene of the offence) on 12.03.2011, found the petitioner - tenant's belongings strewn on the pavement outside the apartment building. Without even examining the complainant, and having failed even to note the outcome of the two suits, (both of which ended in favour of the tenant), the Investigating officer, evidently at the behest of the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gopalapuram Division, prepared a draft final report stating that the complaint "lacked evidence". The Investigating Officer's version, in short, is that the tenant had vacated the apartment on her own volition, and her complaint against the third respondent-landlord of trespass, attempted rape, assault etc lacked evidence or, in other words, the complaint was false. While even an idiot may find this version of the respondent - police officials hard to believe, this Court is called upon to accept that such a conclusion is the justified outcome of an independent, impartial and fair investigation. For reasons stated hereinafter there are justifiable reasons to believe that the Investigating Officer did not impartially investigate the complaint, and the normal course of investigation was derailed only to help the 3rd respondent-landlord, (whose attempts to evict his tenant through the legal process had failed), escape the penal consequences of his having forcibly evicted his inconvenient tenant from his flat which was under her occupation.

(2.) The petitioner, a house wife aged 32 years, has filed this Writ Petition to declare the failaure of the 1st respondent to take action on her representations dated 14.03.2011 and 18.03.2011 as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 3rd respondent is the owner of Flat No.402, 4th Floor, Saraswathi Residency, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad, of which she was the tenant; she filed O.S. No.193 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad seeking perpetual injunction against the 3rd respondent, and obtained a decree; the 3rd respondent issued a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and filed O.S. No.295 of 2008; the said suit filed by the 3rd respondent was dismissed on the ground that the termination notice was not in accordance with law; while matters stood thus the 3rd respondent came to the flat, (under the occupation of the petitioner), on 11.03.2011 around 2.30 p.m., along with his muscle-men, and hit the petitioner as well as her family members; they threw away the furniture and other articles belonging to the petitioner outside the apartment compound, and took forcible possession of Flat No.402; the complaint lodged by her on 12.03.2011 before the 2nd respondent was registered as F.I.R. No.184 of 2011; as the 2nd respondent did not commence investigation despite five months having elapsed, she filed a representation to the 1st respondent and, as no action was taken on her complaint, she has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) When this Writ Petition was listed on 07.09.2011, Learned Government Pleader for Home sought one week's time to file a counter-affidavit, and to produce the records. The petitioner's counsel was permitted to take out personal notice on the 3rd respondent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit dated 13.09.2011 wherein he stated that the investigating officer had visited the scene of the offence, and had noticed that Flat No.402 was closed and vacant; there were some belongings i.e., cot, chairs, beds and other cloth bundles laid beside the main gate on the foot path; nobody was present there to take care of those strewn articles; investigation was completed and, prima facie, the allegations against the accused were not established beyond reasonable doubt; permission was obtained from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gopalapuram Division, North Zone, on 18.06.2011 to refer the petitioner's complaint as lacking in evidence; though attempts were made to serve the notice, the petitioner was evading receipt thereof; a final report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C, would be filed shortly; and as there was no evidence to establish the guilt of the accused in the F.I.R, the investigating officer had referred the complaint of the petitioner as lack of evidence.