HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24856 of 2010 Date: 16.11.2010 Between : P. Padma. …….Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24856 of 2010 ORDER : In the writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though no crime is registered against her, respondents 4 and 5 are calling her to the Police Station and are harassing her and her family members. A detailed counter affidavit is filed in the writ petition. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter that against the son of the petitioner by name P.Anand Kumar alias Nandu, several cases are registered in various Police Stations in Hyderabad and Cyberabad city in many house breaking offences in the absence of inmates. It is stated that a case in Crime No.3 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC was registered on the file of Chikkadpally Police Station, against the son of the petitioner and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is also filed. It is further stated that the son of the petitioner is also involved in Crime Nos.152 of 2010 and 386 of 2010 on the file of P.S. Saroornagar, for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC. While stating that the son of the petitioner by name P.Anand Kumar alias Nandu is a notorious offender in house breaking offences, it is stated that to prevent the Police from taking any action against her son, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with baseless allegations. It is stated that the petitioner is not at all required in any of the cases registered on the file of Chikkadpally Police Station and was never summoned to the Police Station, except causing inquiries at the residence of the petitioner to know the whereabouts of her son. When cases are registered against the son of the petitioner, it is always the duty of the Police to investigate into such crimes. If there is inquiry to know the whereabouts of the petitioner’s son, it cannot be said that there is interference by the Police. If the accused in such offences is absconding, it is always open for the investigating agencies and its officers to know his whereabouts in the places of his parents, relatives, etc. Merely when such inquiries are made, it cannot be construed as interference by the Police. As much as it is stated that the petitioner is not required and no case is registered against her and that she was never summoned by the Police for any investigation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, placing on record the statement made in the counter that no case is registered against the petitioner and that she is not being summoned. At the same time, it is open for the respondents to investigate the offences registered against the son of the petitioner, and also to know his whereabouts. Subject to the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th November 2010 ajr