IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1219 of 2010 Between: Papasani Kotaiah, S/o.late Chinna Ramaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ:Cultivation, R/o.Enugupalem Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur Disttrict and others. … Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1219 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in insisting the petitioners to appear before the Police station and made them to sit from 10.00 a.m., to 8.00 p.m., every day under the guise of investigation and also insisting to depose as per their wishes with regard to the investigation in Crime No.64 of 2009 of Vinukonda Police Station, Vinukonda, Guntur District and further threatening the petitioners in implicating as accused in the above said crime if the petitioners will not depose as per the wishes of the 2nd respondent, as illegal improper, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that younger son, Papasani Subba Rao, of the 1st petitioner was murdered on the night of 28.02.2009 and elder son, Papasani Nageswara Rao, lodged a written complaint on 01.03.2009 before the 3rd respondent that was registered as in Crime No.64 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of IPC against 16 persons, who belong to the same village and with whom the petitioners have both civil and criminal cases in the Court. While so, during the course of investigation one Kancherla Educkondalu made a statement before the Village Revenue Officer, Enugupalem village stating that he and 4 others are responsible for the murder of the 1st petitioner’s younger son. Based on his confession, respondents 2 and 3 arrested him and two other accused on 07.04.2009 and also alleged to have seized certain weapons and motorcycle and also a cell phone by showing them as accused Nos.A- 2 to A-4. It is submitted that based on the statement of A-2 i.e., Kancherla Edukondalu, the 2nd respondent deleted the names of Madineni Pulla Rao and 15 others mentioned in the FIR and the names of A-1 to A-5 i.e., Davuluri Venkaiah Babu, Kancherla Edukondalu @ Kondalu, Guntur Siva, Appisetty Anjaneyulu and another are incorporated as accused and remanded A-2 to A-4 to judicial custody. It is further submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the son of the 1st petitioner, the Police have registered the Crime No.64 of 2009. In a complaint it is specifically stated that an extent of Acs.2.74 cents of land was given to Anusha by her father Anumolu Nageswara Rao, who is no other than the husband of the 1st petitioner’s daughter Krishnaveni, while they were taking divorce. Thereafter, the said land was purchased by the villagers of the petitioners, who are the alleged accused in the FIR i.e., complaint from Anmolu Nageswara Rao and in this regard, the 1st petitioner and his sons went into the Court and succeeded. For which, an incident took place and in the said incident, two persons, belonging to the persons shown in the FIR, were died. In the said case the 1st petitioner and others shown as accused. Since, then they bore grudge against the family of the 1st petitioner and murdered his son. The Police having registered the crime, failed to investigate into the matter properly. Merely based on the confession of one Edukondalu, the 2nd respondent deleted the names of 16 persons and filed preliminary charge sheet, wherein the petitioners along with the elder son of the 1st petitioner shown as L.Ws.1, 3, 5 and 7. While the things stood thus, when a notice was issued to the petitioners, by the 2nd respondent to appear before him and give statements, the petitioners appeared and started giving evidence, for which, the 2nd respondent refused to record the same and insisted them to give evidence as stated in the remand report as well as in the preliminary charge sheet as stated by A-2 and other witnesses. When the petitioners refused and questioned the acts of the 2nd respondent, they were warned with dire consequences by stating that they will be implicated in the same offence under Sections 194, 195 and 12(B) of IPC, if they will not give evidence as per the wishes of the 2nd respondent. It is further submitted that without recording the statements of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent filed the preliminary charge sheet wherein, the petitioners have shown as list of examined witnesses Nos.3, 5 and 7. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent, in threatening the petitioners and insisting them to give evidence as per his wishes, is improper, illegal, and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, no counter has been filed. The main grievance of the petitioners is that in connection with the murder of younger son of the 1st petitioner, Crime No.64 of 2009 was registered before the respondents and the petitioners were called to the Police station for giving their statements. When the petitioners are giving their own statements, the 2nd respondent had insisted them to give statements as per his wishes and otherwise threatened them with dire consequences. Further, the 2nd respondent, under the guise of investigation in the said crime, harassing the petitioners by calling them to the Police station and making them to sit there from morning 10 a.m., to evening 8 p.m. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition. It is no doubt that the Police, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure, empowered with certain powers to deal with the crime and to examine the witnesses. Even for the purpose of examining the witnesses or investigation, there is a procedure contemplated under the said Code and under the guise of examining the witnesses or investigation, the Police are not supposed to harass the alleged witnesses to give their statements as per the will and wishes of the Police Officer. The witnesses are always at liberty to depose their statements under the gracious atmosphere but not under pressurized atmosphere or as per the will and wishes of the Police. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the liberty of the petitioners even in connection with the investigation in Crime No.64 of 2009, except in accordance with law. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 08.07.2010 LSK