IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32500 of 2010 BETWEEN Kondapalli Bhoomaiah. ... PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. C. DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the third respondent in harassing the petitioner and his family members by calling to the police station frequently as illegal, arbitrary and violation of their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. One Ande Parsharamulu filed a complaint on 08.10.2009 with the Station House Officer, Chigurumamidi Police Station, Karimanagar stating that the son of the petitioner by name Kondapalli Bikshapathi styling himself as Dubai Agent received huge amounts from him and others and deceived them. Pursuant to the said complaint against the son of the petitioner, a case is registered in Cr.No.138 of 2009 under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and it is stated that the son of the petitioner, who is the accused in the aforesaid crime, is absconding and the matter is under investigation. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that under the guise of the registration of the aforesaid crime, though the petitioner and his family members have nothing to do with the same, the police are harassing them by visiting their house and detaining them in the police station in the absence of registration of crime against them. 4. Based on the written instructions dated 27.12.2010 submitted by the third respondent, it is argued by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the third respondent did not visit the house of the petitioner on 14.12.2010, as alleged and there is no interference with the petitioner, his younger son and son-in-law, as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that except registering the said crime, there is no interference with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner and his family members. 5. It is not in dispute that the complaint was only against the son of the petitioner. While it is open to the respondent – police to conduct investigation in the aforesaid crime by enquiring against the son of the petitioner, at the same time, the respondents shall not interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner and other family members viz. his younger son and son-in-law. 6. As it is stated that the petitioner and other family members were not called to the police station and detained by the police, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to proceed with the investigation in Cr.No.138 of 2009, but at the same time, they shall not interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner and other family members. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 28, 2010 DSK