SADRUDDIN JAVERI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sadruddin Javeri and another have moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution alleging, inter alia, that the respondent police officials have violated his right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India by entering into his residential house in Plot No. 330, Road No. 25, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, seized various articles, falsely registered a case in Cr. No. 26/1996 on the file of P.S., CCS, Hyderabad, and committed various atrocities for which he has sought adequate compensation. The petition, though in a haphazard manner, discloses the following facts : The petitioner was appointed as the principal advisor and head of the managing committee called Shar-e-Khas of the properties by the ex-Nizam of Hyderabad in August 1990. Certain events, however, brought in some disenchantment. Nizam severed his relations with him (the petitioner) and issued a letter dt. 27th May, 1995 withdrawing the powers which he had given to him (the petitioner). There has been some dispute, however, with the Taj Group of Hotels about which some details are stated in the petition and which appear to have given occasion for some communications with the police including one by the Nizam and it is alleged on 4th February, 1996 while e the petitioner and his wife were at Delhi, the respondent police officials along with about 60 policemen, all subordinates to the third respondent, according to the petitioner, 'raided my residential house at Jubilee Hills bearing Plot No. 330, Road No. 25'. According to the petitioner, there was no formal search warrant. No authority was shown to his staff at his house and entire premises were ransacked from 10 a.m. for about 13 hours. According to the petitioner, not only that, staff were manhandled, intimidated and threatened, the officials and men accompanying them locked his three year old son in a room for over 6 hours along with a neighbour's child. Following the above-mentioned raid at the premises of the petitioner the respondents registered the above-mentioned Cr. No. 26 of 1996. The petitioner moved for anticipatory bail before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and has since been enlarged on bail. The petitioner has further stated that on verification and enquiry and after obtaining the records pertaining to the above crime it has transpired that the 6th respondent herein is shown as the complainant. He has added :

(2.) The petitioner has alleged that it was just a reign of terror, a reckless act, wanton and deliberate, which was further aggravated by wide publicity of the alleged search and seizure of several valuables worth crores of rupees from the premises of the petitioner. The Commissioner of Police personally gave statements as though antiques which were recovered from the house were of the estimated value worth ten crores of rupees and in the items seized they introduced a gun and a liquor bottle which never belong to him and although cash amount of Rs. 3,50,000 kept in a small brown bag in the walk-in-wardrobe was removed, the same was not shown to have been found in the house of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has also moved an application under s. 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973 being M.P. No. 649 of 1996 to quash the said crime. It has, however, been dismissed as not maintainable.