IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19843 of 2008 Between: 1 Vadugu Venkateswara Rao S/o. V. Venkata Narayana R/o. D.No. 13-48, Pamarru, Krishna District. 2 V. Sesha Kumari W/o. V. Venkateswara Rao R/o. D.No. 13-48, Pamarru, Krishna District. 3 K. Venkata Ratna Kumari W/o. K.T.V.S.R. Prasad R/o. B2, Lakshmi Paradise Apts., Narsimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2 The Station House Officer, Pamarru Police Station, Pamarru, Krishna District. 3 The Station House Officer, Avanigadda Police Station, Avanigadda, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd and 3rd respondents’ police in harassing the petitioners in spite of there being no case or complaint registered against them, as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful apart from being violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to harass the petitioners by calling them to the Police Station and by entering into the residence of the petitioners to disturb the peaceful possession of their house and life. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.D.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19843 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents. Petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife and petitioner No.3 is their daughter. According to the petitioners, there are disputes between the second son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and his wife and they are living separately, and the efforts made by the petitioners to make them live together could not be fructified. It is their case that at the instigation of their daughter-in-law, who is living with her parents at Avanigadda, the respondents 2 and 3, Station House Officers of Pamarru and Avanigadda Police Stations respectively, have been calling them to Police Station, without there being any crime registered, harassing them in the name of investigation and even coming to their house and compelling them to compromise the matter with their daughter-in-law, by handing over their house to her. The petitioners complain that they have submitted a representation to the 1st respondent- Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, on 15.08.2008, seeking directions to the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass them, but no action has been taken thereon till date. Hence, this writ petition. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent- Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru Police Station, Krishna District, wherein, while denying all the allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the daughter-in-law of the petitioners 1 and 2 has lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent stating that her husband and the petitioners subjected her to mental and physical harassment to meet the demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, and basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.102 of 2008 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, the 1st respondent has examined six witnesses and it was prima facie revealed that the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. Hence, the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 was arrested and sent to judicial custody by the Criminal Court. It is further stated that no cases were registered on the file of Avanigadda Police Station against the petitioners herein, and except registration of aforesaid crime on the file of Pamarru Police Station, the respondent police have not harassed the petitioners at any point of time, and the present writ petition is filed only to prevent the police from taking any action in future if any complaint is lodged against the petitioners. Further, the allegations of the petitioners that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are calling them to police station, harassing them in the name of investigation and coming to their house etc. were all denied. It is further categorically stated that before registration of crime against the petitioners, the 2nd respondent never summoned the petitioners to police station and never harassed them at any point of time. In view of the above counter averments and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever without following the due process of the law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 21st November, 2008. IBL