# Mohd. Sultan & Ors v. State of U.P. and Ors - **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 378 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2014-02-14 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7120 of 2014 - **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala, Rajan Roy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-sultan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42836 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Art.-21-Right to life and liberty-petitioner seeking protectionfrom unnecessary harassment by local police-in add hours in mid night-only reason disclosed the petitioner to be hurdend criminal-merely filing charge sheet-can not be basis of presumption of criminal-knocking the doors by police without any authority of law-amounts to intrusion into fundamental 1 All] Mohd. Sultan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 379 rights-mandamus issued-with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Held: Para-11 In the instant case, the respondents contend that petitioner no.1 is a notorious criminal. The mere fact that a chargesheet has been filed against him does not make him a notorious criminal. The respondents have not said anything about the antecedents of the other petitioners nor has stated anything about the antecedents of the respondents against whom a first information report had also been lodged. The State authorities have to take action which is reasonable and fair and just procedure established by law has to be followed. Even though the petitioners have been chargesheeted, they still have their right under the Constitution. The action of the respondents in making such nocturnal visits is wholly illegal and without any sufficient cause. Case Law discussed: (2012)5 SCC 1. ## Text 378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES out by the counter affidavit filed by the police as well as by the Advocate Commissioner's report. The possession of the petitioners is further fortified by the counter affidavit of respondent no.7 indicating that he was not in possession since March, 2013. 12. The Court further finds from a perusal of the sale deeds of the petitioners and respondent no.7 that the areas of the plot are different and the boundaries are different. Whereas the sale deed of the petitioners indicate the purchase of land and house, the sale deed of respondent no.7 does not indicate the existence of any structure such as house in question. 13. House grabbing is a serious matter. Taking illegal and forcible possession without any authority of law on the basis of an alleged sale deed is wholly illegal. The country is governed by a rule of law and no one could be allowed to break the law. This Court in Smt. Chetan Atma Govil Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and others, 1995 (26) ALR 114 and Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (42) ALR 817 has condemned the practice of house grabbing. 14. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that apparently on the basis of the affidavits that has been filed before the Court, the petitioners are in possession and they cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law. An attempt to grab the house forcefully was made. It is alleged that a Sub-Inspector and Chowki In-charge were also involved. The rule of law is required to be maintained. It is the duty of the administration, especially the police to maintain law and order and ensure that no such incident of house grabbing takes place. The practice of house grabbing is deprecated. 15. We accordingly, dispose of the writ petition by issuing a writ of mandamus to respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 to ensure that no unforeseen incident takes place at the premises in question, such as house grabbing and that adequate security is provided to the petitioners in the event, such a need arises. We also direct the police authorities to complete the investigation as early as possible preferably within six weeks from today. The investigation will also include the role of the Sub-Inspector and other police personnel and, in the event, their role is affirmed, disciplinary action would be initiated against them. It would be open to the parties to file a suit in a court of law to establish their title on the property in question. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7120 of 2014 Mohd. Sultan & Ors...... Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and Ors...... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Ananad Mohan Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Art.-21-Right to life and liberty-petitioner seeking protectionfrom unnecessary harassment by local police-in add hours in mid night-only reason disclosed the petitioner to be hurdend criminal-merely filing charge sheet-can not be basis of presumption of criminal-knocking the doors by police without any authority of law-amounts to intrusion into fundamental 1 All] Mohd. Sultan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 379 rights-mandamus issued-with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Held: Para-11 In the instant case, the respondents contend that petitioner no.1 is a notorious criminal. The mere fact that a chargesheet has been filed against him does not make him a notorious criminal. The respondents have not said anything about the antecedents of the other petitioners nor has stated anything about the antecedents of the respondents against whom a first information report had also been lodged. The State authorities have to take action which is reasonable and fair and just procedure established by law has to be followed. Even though the petitioners have been chargesheeted, they still have their right under the Constitution. The action of the respondents in making such nocturnal visits is wholly illegal and without any sufficient cause. Case Law discussed: (2012)5 SCC 1. (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners and have further prayed that they should not be harassed and humiliated by the police at odd hours of the night without any just and cogent reason. The petitioners have also prayed that an enquiry be instituted in the matter relating to the nocturnal visits made by the police at the residence of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners contend that on account of some inter se dispute with respondents no.6 and 7 several first information reports had been lodged against the petitioners and cross first information reports have also been lodged by the petitioners against respondents no.6 and 7. Pursuant to the investigation, chargesheets against the petitioners as well as against respondents no.6 and 7 have been filed before the appropriate court of law. 4. The petitioners contend that in spite of the chargesheets being filed, the petitioners are being harassed by the police in collusion with respondents no.6 and 7. Various first information reports have been lodged in various police stations in the city of Allahabad and the petitioners have gone to all the police stations and have produced the relevant documents inspite of which the respondents continue to harass the petitioners by visiting their residence at odd hours of the night without any cogent reasons. 5. This Court called for a counter affidavit. Respondent no.3,Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad has filed a counter affidavit indicating that the petitioner no.1 is a notorious criminal and a land mafia. The police is not harassing nor humiliating the petitioners nor are they in collusion with private respondents no.6 and 7. Pursuant to the first information reports lodged by various parties, including the petitioners, fair investigation was made and without being influenced by any person or authority, chargesheets were filed which are pending in a court of law. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and having perused the record, the Court finds that a categorical assertion was made by the petitioners in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, namely, that the police are harassing the petitioners by visiting them at odd hours and also lifting them at odd hours. This specific assertion has not been denied by the 380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Senior Superintendent of Police in paragraph 6 of his counter affidavit. 7. Personal liberty is a fundamental right of the petitioners, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such right which is given under the Constitution cannot be infringed by the police by carrying out investigation in such a nefarious manner. There is no allegation in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are not participating in the investigation or are absconding. 8. On the other hand, they admit the assertions made by the petitioners in the writ petition that all relevant documents have been produced by them to the police authorities. Consequently, the Court does not find any justification in the action of the police in visiting the residence of the petitioners at odd hours of the night in the absence of any cogent or sufficient reason. 9. In Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re, (2012) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that right to sleep is a biological necessity and interfering with the person's sleep is prohibited by the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to sleep is associated with sound health, which is an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the knock at the door by the police without authority of law amounts to an incursion into privacy and violation of the fundamental rights of a citizen. The right to privacy has also been held to be a fundamental right being an integral part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further held that the legitimate intrusion into the privacy of a person is not permissible as right to privacy is inclusive in the right to life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. 10. The primary task of the State is to provide security to all citizens without violating human dignity. Privacy and dignity of human life is a fundamental right of every human being and any action which offends or impairs human dignity tantamounts to deprivation of a right to live. 11. In the instant case, the respondents contend that petitioner no.1 is a notorious criminal. The mere fact that a chargesheet has been filed against him does not make him a notorious criminal. The respondents have not said anything about the antecedents of the other petitioners nor has stated anything about the antecedents of the respondents against whom a first information report had also been lodged. The State authorities have to take action which is reasonable and fair and just procedure established by law has to be followed. Even though the petitioners have been chargesheeted, they still have their right under the Constitution. The action of the respondents in making such nocturnal visits is wholly illegal and without any sufficient cause. 12. In the light of the aforesaid, a writ of mandamus is issued to the police authorities not to harass the petitioners by visiting them at odd hours in the night unless the police authority has sufficient and cogent reasons for making such visit which would be recorded prior to their visit. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid to the petitioners within three weeks from today. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J.