IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11872 of 2009 Between: 1 Mr.Ganesh Raja S/o M.S Raghava Raja Door No.1/24/36 S.V.Nagar Nagari 517590 Chittoor District 2 G.Gayathri Devi W/o.M.R Ganesh Raja Door No.1/24/36 S.V.Nagar Nagari 517590 Chittoor District 3 V.R Sankara Narayana S/oLate V.Rajendra Raja Door No.61 Mudanoor Street Chakkaraja Kottli,Rajapalyam Tamilanadu ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Circle Inspector of Police Nagari, Chittoor District 2 The Station House Officer Nagari Police Station, Nagari, Chittoor District 3 S.Subramanyam, S/o Late Srinivasulu Naidu D.No.1/26/34, S.V.Nagar, Nagari Town, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.3: ----- The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners sought for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with their life and personal liberty. Heard Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 and the petitioners are co- tenants living in House bearing No.1/24/36, S.V.Nagar, Nagari Town, Chittoor District. Respondent No.3 gave a complaint to respondent No.2 on 30-03-2009 stating that on 14-03-2009, some gold ornaments, kept by him in his almirah in the bedroom of his house, were found missing. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.61 of 2009 for offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). In his affidavit, petitioner No.1 narrated several events pertaining to his alleged harassment by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by taking him into custody and detaining him illegally for nearly four to five days, his cousin filing W.P.No.10573 of 2009 for a writ of Habeas Corpus and further harassment of himself and his family members by the Police, after he was set free. In response to the notice issued by this Court, Sri T.Madhu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagari Police Station, who is also Investigating Officer, filed a counter- affidavit wherein he inter alia stated that the clues team has collected finger prints of the petitioners, respondent No.3, his wife and neighbours on 31-03-2009; that during the course of investigation, respondent No.3 again approached respondent No.2 with another petition stating that his enquiry revealed that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 visited his house in the absence of his wife and taking advantage of the situation, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 committed theft of gold ornaments; that basing on the said second complaint, respondent No.2 went to the petitioners’ house and found that the petitioners locked their house and left the place and; that they are making efforts to apprehend the petitioners, as they are suspects in the above-said Crime. On 26-06-2009, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that the information sent to her through a fax message by respondent No.2 shows that the fingerprint unit of CID, Chittoor, has given opinion on 03-04-2009 that the fingerprints of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 along with the fingerprints of several other persons, taken during the course of investigation, did not tally with the fingerprints found on the almirah of respondent No.3. Since this fact has not been stated in the counter-affidavit by respondent No.2 and it was stated therein that the respondents-Police Officers are still making efforts to apprehend the petitioners, this Court directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be present in person. Today, they are present in the Court. They have stated that their failure to mention about the fingerprint report in the counter-affidavit was a bonafide mistake. They further stated that in view of the report of the fingerprint unit, the petitioners are no longer suspects and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not interfering with their personal liberty. Though this Court is not completely convinced on the explanation of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on not disclosing about the report of the fingerprint unit, received by them as far back as 03-04-2009, this Court is not inclined to probe further into this aspect having regard to the statement given by them that they are not harassing the petitioners and that they are not required in connection with the Criminal Case, registered on the complaint of respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are cautioned to be careful in future while dealing with the suspects of a Crime and not to violate their valuable rights of life and personal liberty merely because they are suspected to be involved in the commission of an offence. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.15295 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 13th July, 2009 lur