IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.24324 of 2008 Between: M.Mehar Krishna and another. … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Venkatesh. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in harassing the petitioners in connection with Crime No.100 of 2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for quashing of the FIR registered in the said crime. The petitioners claimed that they have left their homes and willfully entered into wedlock with each other. On the complaint given by the maternal grand father of petitioner No.2, respondent No.2 registered a criminal case in Crime No.100 of 2008 under Section 363 IPC against petitioner No.1. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.2 is a major, being 18 years of age, and as she voluntarily left her home and married petitioner No.1 with her free will and consent, there is no question of petitioner No.1 kidnapping petitioner No.2. The petitioners specifically alleged that respondent No.2 is harassing them in the guise of investigation into the said crime. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is stated that in the complaint lodged by the grand father of petitioner No.2 it was alleged that petitioner No.2 is aged 17 years and was kidnapped by petitioner No.1 on 13-10-2008 at 6 A.M., and that, on the basis of the said complaint, the aforesaid crime was registered and the same is being investigated into. Respondent No.2 specifically denied the allegation of harassing the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.2 is 18 years of age and that, therefore, she is entitled to marry a person of her choice. He further submitted that as petitioner No.2 willingly left her home and married petitioner No.1, the very allegation that petitioner No.1 kidnapped petitioner No.2 is false. In my considered view it is premature for this Court to interfere with the investigation being carried on by respondent No.2 into the criminal case registered against petitioner No.1. The petitioners have not filed any proof that petitioner No.2 is a major. At any rate, I am not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage as the petitioners failed to make out a case for quashing of the FIR. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed by placing on record the specific averment of respondent No.2 that except investigating into the case he is not interfering with the life and personal liberty of the petitioners. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:02-6-2009 MNR