THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.44209 OF 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to a) to declare the action of the police personnel under the control of the 3rd and 4th respondents in illegally arresting the petitioner and other organizers and detaining them and in preventing the petitioner from conducting Deeksha at Dharna Chowk, Indira Park, Hyderabad on 24.11.2016 is violative of Article 19 (1)(a) and (b) and 14 of the Constitution of India inspite of permission granted vide File No.HC1/6038/2016, dated 23.11.2016 by the 4th respondent, b)to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakh to the petitioner for loss of reputation arising out of their illegal arrest, detention and preventing him from exercising his right guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the constitution of India inspite of due permission granted by the 3rd respondent vide File No.HC-

1/6038/2016, dated 23.11.2016 and pass...”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

4. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the contention advanced by the petitioner pertains to his alleged unlawful arrest during the conduct of a “Deeksha” at Dharna Chowk, Indira Park, Hyderabad, on 24.11.2016, despite having obtained prior permission dated 23.11.2016, and his claim for compensation for the same. It was further submitted that although the permission dated 23.11.2016 permitted the conduct of the Deeksha, it explicitly prohibited rallies or processions.

However, on 24.11.2016, during the said Deeksha, the petitioner, along with others, allegedly attempted to proceed towards the Chief Minister’s Camp Office in violation of the permission conditions. Consequently, the petitioner was taken into preventive custody under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), based on a report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police on duty. Subsequently, Crime No. 330 of 2016 was registered, but the First Information Report (FIR) was closed on 25.11.2016 as the action was dropped. Thus, it was contended that as the alleged action was within the legal parameters, no further cause of action survives in this writ petition.

5. Upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner relied upon the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad, dated 23.11.2016, wherein one Mr. Y. Srinivas Reddy was permitted to conduct a Deeksha at Dharna Chowk on 24.11.2016, subject to fourteen (14) specific conditions, one of which expressly prohibited the conduct of any rally or procession.

6. The respondents have filed material, including the report of the Sub- Inspector of Police, showing that on 24.11.2016, while the Deeksha was being conducted, the petitioner and others attempted to proceed towards the Chief Minister’s Camp Office, thereby violating the conditions imposed in the permission. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that he was arrested during the peaceful conduct of the Deeksha and has filed photographs purporting to show that the police personnel had blocked the road and restrained the participants.

7. Having regard to the permission conditions, particularly the prohibition on rallies and the admitted fact that the petitioner and others attempted to move in a procession towards the Chief Minister’s Camp Office, the action of the police in taking them into preventive custody under Section 151 Cr.P.C., appears to be justified. The provision authorizes police officers to arrest any person without a warrant when such arrest is necessary to prevent the commission of a cognizable offence.

8. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr [(1971) 2 SCC 442], observed that preventive action under Section 151 Cr.P.C., must be exercised to avert imminent breaches of p