THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 26022 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner namely S. Leela Madhuri filed the present writ petition, contending that she is major and she fell in love with one Sandeep, who is aged about 20 years. Since her friend Sandeep did not attain the age of majority, they decided to get married after he attains the age of majority, but, her father, respondent No.3 herein, who is opposed to the same, confined her in the house and compelled her to marry the person of his choice. Therefore, she left her parents’ house on her own and is staying in her friend’s house at Vijayawada, whereas her friend Sandeep is residing at Hyderabad and he or his father do not know about her whereabouts. But, it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.2- Station House Officer, Bapatla Police Station, at the instance of her father, is calling her friend Sandeep and his father to police station and threatening to implicate them in false cases, if they do not produce her before him. On 22.10.2010, this Court adjourned the matter to next week, at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home to get instructions. Thereafter, when the matter came up on the last occasion i.e. on 29.10.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, while the writ petition is pending, respondent No.2 has taken away the petitioner along with her friend Sandeep to the police station, at the instance of respondent No.3, the father of the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has sent SMS messages to the parents of Sandeep to come over to the Police Station. Since the said allegations made against respondent No.2 are serious in nature, this Court directed him to appear before the Court in person today to justify his action. Accordingly, one Mr. Mahaboob Basha, Circle Inspector of Bapatla Police Station, and Mr. Narayana, Sub Inspector of Police, Karlapalem Police Station, Guntur, the in-charge officer concerned, appeared before this Court, and they denied the allegations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is also present before the Court and she submits that she does not want to pursue the writ petition. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the petitioner in person, it appears respondent No.2, at the instance of respondent No.3, has summoned the petitioner and her friend Mr. Sandeep to police station and kept them in police station for considerable period, which is not permissible under law. In the circumstances, this Court feels that it is a fit case, where the 1st respondent- Superintendent of Police has to be directed to enquire into the allegations leveled against the officers present before this Court and take necessary action. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry in the matter and if it is found that the allegations leveled against the officers are found to be true, he shall take appropriate action against them. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 1st November, 2010 IBL