P. S. MISHRA C. J.

( 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 :"the Dy. Commissioner of Police, DD, Hyderabad, registered the case and the Inspector of Police (Administration), C. C. S. , DD handed over the file to the 6th respondent who is also the complainant for investigation. The 6th respondent himself is also appointed the investigating officer, and prepared some search warrant on 5/02/1996 and showed as having raided the houses of Mr. Ram Bharose Gupta and my house at 8 a. m. and 12. 00 noon on 5th February, 1996, respectively. All this is concocted. In fact, the press reports and my press release amply show that the actual raid was conducted illegally by respondents 5 and 6 under the leadership of respondent No. 4 along with the active connivance of the other police officials, who are impleaded herein, on Sunday the 4/02/1996 itself. The 4th respondent has been indulging in this sort of activities against me in the affairs of the Nizam of Hyderabad since a long time. He seemed to be having vested interest and he seems to be acting in conspiracy and collusion with people having vested interests. The 4th respondent herein was actively involved in the entire raid of my house. From the record manipulated by the respondent police officials, in the said crime they have purposely screened his name, as he has neither jurisdiction nor power. Similarly, earlier also the 4th respondent had interfered with the affairs of the private estate of the Nizam at the instance of some rival jewellers who must have paid large sums of moneys to him to undertake and supervise at the initial stages the criminal act described herebelow.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document