IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CRL.P.NO.6892 OF 2008 Date:25.03.2010 Between:- M.Shravan Kumar and another ..Petitioners And M.Sri Ramulu and another .. Respondents ORDER:- Heard the learned counsel. 2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of the notice No.Crime-29/PS-CNK/08 dated 27.09.2008 issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chatrinaka Police Station in Crime No.29 of 2008 of Chatrinaka Police Station. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the son of the first respondent by name M.Muralidhar, Traffic Police Constable bearing No.9209 working at Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad is missing from 22.01.2008 from his house at Kandikal, Boiguda. He went from his house on two wheeler motor cycle and the case is under investigation. It is further submitted that on 03.03.2008, the first respondent filed O.S.No.97 of 2008 for partition before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also filed I.A.No.905 of 2008. By an order dated 05.03.2008, the learned Judge granted status quo and the same is pending. In the said suit, the first petitioner and his father are the defendants. It is further stated that on 29.06.2008, the Inspector of Police, Chatrinaka Police Station took the first petitioner to the police station and threatened him to settle the civil dispute with first respondent, as his son is working in their department and also threatened him that if he and his father fail to settle the civil dispute with the first respndent, he would implicate the petitioners in Crime No.29 of 2008, which was registered under man missing. Even on the next day i.e., 30.06.2008, the first petitioner was once again taken to the police station illegally, detained there and beaten him and once again, advised to settle the civil dispute with the first respondent. The petitioners have been receiving threatening calls from the first respondent as well as the police. Therefore, the first petitioner left the house by leaving his wife and children. On 02.07.2008, the father of the first petitioner-M.Bala Raju gave a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad requesting him to instruct the Station House Officer, Chatrinaka Police Station not to harass the petitioners for the settlement of civil dispute. It is further stated that O.S.No.97 of 2008 was coming up for trial. While so, on 22.09.2008, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chatrinaka Police Station issued a notice instructing the petitioners to appear before the Chatrinaka Police Station on 24.09.2008 at 8.00 p.m. to enable the petitioners to produce before the Forensic Science Laboratory for polygraph test to ascertain the truth or clues of the missing man in Crime No.29 of 2008. Accordingly, the second petitioner appeared before the police but she was directed to come on a later date and again, a fresh notice was issued on 27.09.2008 to appear before the police on 29.10.2008 for the same purpose. It is further stated that they are totally innocent of the alleged crime and in fact, the missing person is the cousin of the first petitioner and he is working as Traffic Constable. Further, the motor cycle, which he was using, was also traced. Nearly nine months have elapsed since the registration of the crime and now, the police are issuing notice. There is absolutely no material to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime and there is no iota of evidence against the petitioners. It is further stated that the police, without collecting any evidence, unnecessarily harassing the petitioners by making them to undergo the polygraph test and are involving in the civil dispute and putting pressure on the petitioners for polygraph test. 4. The first respondent filed Crl.P.M.P.No.2806 of 2010 to vacate the interim stay dated 31.10.2008 granted by this Court. It is stated that the complainant had already undergone polygraph test. It is also stated that no prejudice would be caused if the petitioners herein also undergo the said polygraph test. It is at the stage of investigation. However, the concerned police are at liberty to move appropriate application and obtain necessary orders from the competent Criminal Court. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _​_____________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 25th March, 2010 AMD