Telangana High Court Orders Police To Provide Surveillance To Actor Mohan Babu After Alleged Attack Orchestrated By Son To Grab His House

The Telangana High Court on Wednesday (December 11) in an interim order directed the Commissionerate Of Police, Hyderabad and Additional District Magistrate, Rachakonsa not to compel the presence of actor and MP Mohan Babu in a show cause notice issued to him under section 126 of BNSS.

Section 126 BNSS states that when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably cause a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the magistrate thinks fit.

Babu contended that based on a complaint given by his son, an FIR was registered (in which he was not even an accused) following which, a show cause notice was issued to him under Section 126 of the BNSS.

During the hearing Justice B.Vijaysen Reddy, that the FIR was the outcome of a family dispute surrounding property. He further noted that the incident that has been narrated in the FIR, took place within the compound of the accused hence, scrapping the possibility of 'disturbance of public tranquillity or peace'.

“Considering that the incident occurred at the house of the petitioner and the other persons were the helpers, security, etc, and since it is a family dispute, the presence of the petitioner is dispensed with,” the court said.

Justice Reddy also noted that the henchmen of respondent no.8/Babu's younger son had allegedly made multiple attempts to evict the petitioner of his property, creating an unsafe atmosphere. Further it was noted that owing to the fame the petitioner had garnered for himself, multiple media house reports and journalists were flocking outside the house of the petitioner to get an exclusive tit-bit of the case.

This, the Bench, noted was not a conducive environment for the petitioner and his wife to live in. Thus the court directed the police officials to conduct surveillance of the petitioner's house every 2 hours and ensure abidance to law and order.

“Petitioner wanted police protection owing to the journalists, social media posts and fake messages leading to scare. Thus, 5^th respondent along with Respondents 6 and 7 directed to keep the house of the petitioner under surveillance every 2 hours and ensure law and order,” it said.

Background

The petitioner contended that his relations with his younger son had grown estranged, so much so, to the point that they no more resided together. Babu claimed that on December 8 the respondent 8 (younger son) had sent a large number of anti-social elements to the petitioner's house with the intent to grab the house.

The petitioner claims to have received multiple injuries in this brawl, which was somehow contained following the lethargic intervention by the police.

It was further alleged that despite this, while on the way to work the next day, the petitioner noted a number of strangers deployed around his residence, which he later found to be the men of his younger son. Fearing his life, the petitioner contended that he submitted a representation to the Commissionerate. However, no action was taken on the complaint, and in a total change of events, a FIR was registered against Third Parties at the behest of the petitioner.

He has claimed that he was able to get an FIR registered of his own against the Respondent no. 8. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner herein, days after the registration of his FIR, an even bigger band of anti-social elements working on the behest of the Respondent no. 8 broke into the property of the petitioner and caused utter havoc.

The large number of anti-social elements along with the media persons created an atmosphere of unease and chaos compelling the petitioner to seek for police protection on December 10.

Despite, the mental agony faced by the petitioner, the counsel of the petitioner contended that he was shocked to receive a show cause notice under section 126 of the BNSS by the Magistrate.

Thus, with no other option left, the petitioner approached the Court by way of the present Writ petition seeking quashment of the show cause notice issued to him and police protection.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no element of 'disturbance to public peace/tranquillity' made out since it was a family dispute, that occurred in a private place, I.e., the residence of the petitioner, and not in a public place.

The counsel further contended that the notice was issued without taking the opinion of any expert and without following due procedure, and thus deserved to be set aside.

The State on the other hand argued that the matter was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

The Bench noted that the issue was squarely a family dispute and the FIR registered by Respondent no. 8 was not made against the petitioner herein, hence the petitioner's presence was dispensed with.

However, the Bench concluded that about 30 individuals had approached the house of the petitioner making it a matter of public safety and thus held that Respondent no. 7 (S.H.O) had rightly invoked section 126.

The court thereafter adjourned the matter to December 24.

Dr. Manchu Mohan Babu and Anr vs. State of TS.

Counsel for petitioner: S. Nagesh Reddy assisted by Mohd. Nazeeruddin Khan.

Counsel for respondent: GP for Home.