THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITOIN NO.28878 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for, in this Writ Petition, is to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in sending police constables to the petitioner’s house, and summoning him to the police station at the instance of the 3rd respondent, threatening to implicate him in false criminal cases if the petitioner did not settle with the 3rd respondent, as being arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction is sought to the 2nd respondent not to summon the petitioner or send constables to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner’s case, in short, is that the marriage of his son was performed with the daughter of the 3rd respondent on 18.06.2005; they were blessed with a female child; thereafter the 3rd respondent’s daughter started harassing the petitioner’s son asking him to quit the job; and, since he did not, she lodge a complaint in Cr. No.32 of 2009 under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The 3rd respondent’s daughter is also said to have filed H.M.O.P. No.16 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ongole, for divorce. The 3rd respondent is alleged to be political influential, and to have threatened the petitioner and his son and other family members to settle the matrimonial disputes with his daughter. The petitioner would refer to an incident which took place on 15.10.2011 whereby he was informed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Darsi had called him to the police station without there being any case or crime registered against him; the constables had pressurized the petitioner to be present before the 2nd respondent and, since he refused to do so, the 2nd respondent was sending constables to his residence. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent wherein the allegations of the petitioner being summoned by him to the police station at the instance of the 3rd respondent, and of being threatened with being implicated in false criminal cases, is denied. The petitioner’s assertion of constables being deputed to his house is also denied. It is stated that Cr. No.32 of 2009 was investigated and, thereafter, a final report was filed, and is pending before the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole as C.C. No.158 of 2009; and that the matter does not fall under the jurisdiction of the respondent’s Sub-division. It is also stated that no compliant has been received against the petitioner in their office; the 3rd respondent never approached him or lodged any complaint against the petitioner; there was no necessity for the respondent to summon the petitioner to his office in the absence of pendency of any petition or complaint against him; and he had neither sent any constable to the residence of the petitioner, nor had he threatened him as alleged in the affidavit. In the light of the specific denial in the counter affidavit, of the petitioner being called to the Darsi police station, it would suffice for the purpose of this Writ Petition if the said statement made on oath in the counter-affidavit by the 2nd respondent is placed on record. As the petitioner is not wanted in any criminal case, other than C.C. No.158 of 2009 which is pending trial, it is made clear that even in case the petitioner is required in connection with any investigation, his presence shall only be ensured after a notice is served on him under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 28.11.2011 MRKR