IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13134 of 2008 Between: Kalpana Kapoley W/o. Ramesh Paul R/o. Plot No. 256, Road no.4, Venkatadri Township, Narapally, Ghatkesar Mdl,Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretaiat, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, PS MAlkajgiri, Cyberabad Commissionerate, R.R.District. .....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 to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in trying to interfere with liberty of the pettioner without therebeing any F.I.R. against the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, and violative 21 of the Constituion of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to refrain interfering with the file and liberty of the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 13134 of 2008 Oral Order: The writ petition is filed on an apprehension that the 2nd respondent would interfere with the petitioner’s liberty without lawful cause. It appears that one Smt. Angela filed a complaint against one Ramesh Paul, her mother-in-law and one Kamala, the last individual alleged to have been married to Mr. Paul during the subsistence of the marriage with the complainant, alleging offences under sections 498-A, 494 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner claims to be the lawfully wedded wife of Mr Paul, though sub silentio suggesting to be the only lawfully wedded wife. Apprehending that the police would proceed against her, though the alleged second wife as per the complaint is one Kamala, and not the petitioner whose name is Kalpana, the writ petition is filed. The learned Government Pleader for Home has obtained instructions on behalf of the 2nd respondent and states that the police have after a process of investigation and after examining the complainant are of the view that the name of one of the accused Ms. Kamala is wrongly noted and the police would take appropriate steps to move the jurisdictional Magistrate for alteration of the name of the accused from Kamala to Kalpana and till then the petitioner would not be interrogated and in any event the learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner’s liberty except in accordance with the due process of law. In the light of the submissions above, which are not contested by the petitioner, the cause for the petitioner’s apprehension does not subsist nor a justification for continuance of the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as ‘infructuous’. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 16-07-2008 pvks