IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3312 of 2004 Between: Dare Veera Swamy, S/o. Kanakaiah, aged 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o.M/s.Chaitanya Filling Station, Situated at Kannala village, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. … Petitioner And The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range, Warangal, and 5 others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. Satyam Reddy Counsel for respondents: For R-1 to R-4: G.P., Home For R-5: Sri S.K. Ratna For R-6: Sri V. Ravikiran Rao Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent, Circle Inspector of Police, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District, in summoning him to the police station, basing on the complaint made by the sixth respondent, detaining him without due process of law, taking three cheques from him for an amount of Rs.17.00 lakhs and obtaining his signatures on blank papers, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a retail outlet dealing in petroleum products run in the name of M/s. Chaitanya Filling Station in Kannala village, Kamanpur Mandal of Karimnagar District. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition, it is stated that sixth respondent herein approached the first respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range, and submitted a written complaint on 08-10-2003 stating that the petitioner was to pay certain amounts to him in view of settlement in connection with the business of petrol filling station and when such amounts were demanded, the petitioner threatened him that he will lodge a complaint before the Police stating that he was abused in the name of his caste. The sixth respondent- complainant, in his complaint, before the police, stated that he apprehended danger from the petitioner and sought protection of the Police. On receipt of such complaint by the first respondent, the same was forwarded to the second respondent on 17-10-2003, which was in turn forwarded to the third respondent, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Godavarikhani. The third respondent, further, instructed the fourth respondent-Circle Inspector of Police, Ramagundam to enquire into the complaint lodged by the complainant/sixth respondent and in response to the same, the fourth respondent has reported to the third respondent that the complainant as well as the petitioner herein were called to enquire into the matter and during enquiry it came to light that petitioner and sixth respondent have settled the dispute and the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.17.00 lakhs by postdated cheques dated 01-02-2004, 01-03-2004 and 02-04-2004 for Rs.7.0 lakhs, Rs.7.0 lakhs and Rs.5.0 lakhs respectively. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent, in the capacity of the fourth respondent, has no jurisdiction to investigate into the dispute between himself and the sixth respondent. It is alleged that, only to help the sixth respondent, based on the complaint filed by him, the petitioner was detained illegally though no crime was registered against him. It is the case of the petitioner that he had issued cheques only at the instance of the fifth respondent and further he was also made to sign blank papers on 22-12-2003. 4. Separate counter affidavits are filed by respondents 3 and 5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, while generally denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that when complaint was lodged to the first respondent by the sixth respondent, the same was forwarded to the second respondent, who in turn forwarded the same to the third respondent and on instructions of the third respondent, fourth respondent called the complainant/sixth respondent as well as the petitioner for the purpose of enquiry. While denying the allegations of taking cheques from the petitioner and making him sign on blank papers, it is stated the petitioner was never threatened to settle the matter with the sixth respondent, as alleged. 5. Separate counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.6 with similar set of allegations. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 also, receiving of cheques from the petitioner and making him sign on blank papers is categorically denied. It is stated therein that the complainant/sixth respondent as well as the petitioner were merely called for the purpose of enquiry, in view of the instructions of the fourth respondent, on 22-12-2003, and during the course of enquiry it was found that the dispute between the sixth respondent and the petitioner was settled and the petitioner has paid certain amounts by issuing three cheques in front of mediators, namely, Mr. Sagar Raoa and Mr. Ashok Kumar. 6. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was illegally detained by the fifth respondent, but, except the statement on oath, there is no other material to show that he was, in fact, detained. At the same time, various allegations made by the petitioner are categorically denied in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 3 and 5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the letter dated 11-02-2004 addressed by the fifth respondent to the third respondent, but, on a perusal of the said letter, it cannot be inferred that the amount of Rs.17.00 lakhs, which was payable by the petitioner to the sixth respondent, was paid only at the instance of the fifth respondent. In absence of any evidence in support of the allegation of the petitioner regarding detention, receipt of cheques and making him sign on blank papers, it is not possible to record a definite finding on the said allegations. Further, from the averments made in the counter affidavits filed, it appears that the enquiry made by the fifth respondent is only pursuant to the complaint filed by the sixth respondent before the first respondent. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in the writ petition for grant of relief prayed for. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J November 18, 2009 MRR