IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12488 of 2007 Between: Pulamarasetty Bala Murali Krishna … Petitioner And The Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: None Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12488 of 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the writ petition. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in threatening the petitioner by interfering with his personal life by addressing letters to him, as illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was residing at Bangalore, filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondent in addressing two letters to him to disclose the addresses of the persons named therein evidently in connection with the investigation into a criminal case on the report lodged by his wife. The contents of the counter affidavit disclosed that in the said report given by the petitioner’s wife, which was registered as Crime No.2771 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 509, 109, 506 and 120-B IPC, the petitioner’s father and some other persons were accused of taking her photographs and misbehaving with her in public. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not an accused to the said crime. It is not the pleaded case of the respondent that the petitioner is involved in commission of any other offence and that any criminal case is registered against him. Therefore, I find justification in the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent is unduly interfering with his personal life. Even if the respondent has addressed the said two letters bonafide, it is for the petitioner either to disclose the addresses or not. The respondent cannot force the petitioner to disclose such addresses or harass him for not cooperating in that regard. Unless the petitioner is wanted in any criminal case, it is not permissible for the respondent to interfere with his life and personal liberty. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.15562 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.06.2010. ES