ANJALI JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HYDERABAD

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.) IN his counter-affidavit the 3rd respondent states that he is the owner of Flat No.402. He admits that O.S. No.295 of 2008 filed by him for eviction of the petitioner from the flat was dismissed. He would, however, deny having forcibly dispossessed the petitioner on 11.03.2011 at about 2.30 p.m in association with anti-social elements, or to have torn the petitioner's blouse or to have tried to rape her. He would submit that they did not throw away the furniture and other house hold articles; he is not aware that a complaint was filed before the 2nd respondent on 12.03.2011 against him; he is also unaware whether the petitioner had given a complaint to the 1st respondent or that F.I.R. No.184 of 2011 had been registered by the 2nd respondent against him as alleged; he had never entered the demised premises at any point of time; and he had not committed any illegal acts. He would also state that the petitioner had failed to pay rental arrears of Rs.97,800.00 i.e., rent for 15 months and, when he had demanded payment of rent, she had voluntarily vacated the premises without his knowledge; and she had come up with false allegations only with the intention of harassing him.