IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15014 of 2008 Between: 1 Mr. Harry Pascal, S/o. Harry Pascal, R/o. H.No. 1-16-37/13/1, (Plot No. 247) New Alwal, Sai Durga Colony, Secunderabad. 2 Mrs. Francina, W/o. Harry Pascal, R/o. H.No. 1-16-37/13/1, (Plot No. 247) New Alwal, Sai Durga Colony, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Police, Alwal Police Station, Secunderabad. 3 Tarcisia, W/o. Vincent Pascal, R/o. H.No. 3/49/98, Plot No. 48, Ananda Nagar, Old Alwal, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in calling the petitioners to the Police Station and directing the Petitioners to vacate the house is illegal, improper and violative of Principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to call the petitioners to police station without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in calling the petitioners to the police station and directing them to vacate the house, as arbitrary, illegal land against the principles of natural justice, and consequently, direct the second respondent not to call the petitioners without following the due process of law. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner’s son was married to third respondent on 04-10-2000 at Hyderabad. At the time of marriage their son was doing business and third respondent was working as a teacher. Subsequent to the marriage, the petitioners came to know that the third respondent was not interested in the marriage and the marriage was performed by her parents forcefully. After the marriage, the son of the petitioners and third respondent were not getting on well in their marital life, and ultimately, she gave a report to the police against the petitioners and their son which was registered as Crime No.531 of 2005 of Alwal Police Station, under Section 498-A. The son of the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, he was released on bail. On the intervention of the elders, the third respondent, however, withdrawn the case and the matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat. Even after the compromise, there was no change in the attitude of the third respondent and she left the company of their son. Therefore, his son got issued a legal notice requesting the third respondent to join him and she refused to receive the notice. As there was no response from her side, O.P.No.1192 of 2007 was filed on the file of the learned Family Court, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, for divorce and the same is pending. There is a house in the name of their son at Alwal and his son has got a job and he has left elsewhere and before leaving, their son executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioners to look after the house and pay the electricity, water, telephone taxes and also maintain the house and collect rents. The third respondent, on coming to know about this, came to their house and started demanding to handover the keys of the house. When refused she went to the police station and gave a report against them for which the second respondent called the petitioners to the police station and pressurizing them to hand over the keys to the third respondent. The keys of the house were, however, handed over to the third respondent and they are with her. Even after this, the second and third respondents are threatening to vacate the house or that they will be implicated in false cases. Hence, this writ petition. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioners and it is stated that though it is a fact that on 24-03-2008 the first petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, the contents of which are the same as that are mentioned in the writ petition. The presence of the petitioner was secured to enquire about the contents of the petition and on enquiry it was revealed that the third respondent is residing in a portion belonging to her husband and she is not disturbing the petitioners. The allegations that the petitioners are being harassed and called to the police station are all false and incorrect and the police never intervened into the private affairs of the petitioners. Even the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent also stated that she never went to the police station seeking their help and pressurizing them to vacate the house by the petitioners. Recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first and second respondents not to interfere into the civil disputes between the parties and they shall not be called to the police station unless and until any crime is registered against them. No order as to costs. __________________ 18th November, 2008 SKM