IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14058 of 2009 Between: Sri A. Vikas Goud S/o. Sri A. Yadaiah Goud R/o. H.No. 13-6-707, Marati Street, Karwan, Hyderabad - 6. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Home Department. 2 The Station House Officer Women Police Station CCS., Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Priyanka W/o. A. Vikas Goud R/o. H.No. 15-21-150/45, Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.TUNGAMAHESH KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3, in interfering with the right and liberty of the petitioner without following due process of law, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 filed a criminal complaint, which was registered as Crime No.31 of 2006 by the Police, Kulsumpura. The petitioner filed O.P.No.423 of 2006 in the Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for restitution of conjugal rights. After attending counseling at the counseling center, respondent No.3 withdrew the criminal complaint filed by her and rejoined the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent No.3 left the petitioner and approached respondent No.2, who is, allegedly, harassing the petitioner by making telephone calls and demanding him to appear before the Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. On instructions obtained by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, she stated that after withdrawal of Criminal Case, respondent No.3 again filed a private complaint, which was referred to respondent No.2- Police Station, and that thereupon, Crime No.62 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She further stated that in connection with the investigation into the said Crime, the petitioner’s presence is required. Having regard to the fact that a Criminal Case is registered against the petitioner, respondent No.2 cannot be prevented from investigating into the same. However, while investigating into the Crime, respondent No.2 shall strictly follow due process of law and shall not violate the constitutional rights of the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.18405 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 21st July, 2009 lur