HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5930 of 2010 Date 23.08.2010 Between: Smt Kaleswaram Chandika. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner :Smt K.Chandika (Party-in-person) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant Government for Home Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Ms. Ambica Rani HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5930 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to recover the marriage articles, gold, cash and other belongings of the petitioner’s deceased daughter from respondent No.4 and handover the same to the petitioner. At the hearing, the petitioner, Smt Kaleswaram Chandika, is present in person. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Ambica Rani, learned Counsel representing respondent No.4. The grievance of the party-in-person is that while she has lost her daughter due to harassment and cruelty shown by respondent No.4, the police have not been seizing jewellery, cash and other articles given by her to respondent No.4 on the occasion of her daughter’s marriage. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that presently two criminal cases are pending against respondent No.4, one under Section 498-A IPC and another under Section 306 IPC. It is further stated that in the latter case, charge sheet was filed on 03.03.2010 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and that the case is yet to be committed. She further stated that the police could not seize any articles or jewellery because respondent No.4 has denied receipt of any such articles. Learned Counsel representing respondent No.4 stated that there were longstanding matrimonial disputes between the deceased and respondent No.4, that in the award passed by the Lok Adalat in O.P.No.272 of 2005, the deceased admitted her mistakes and that she has joined her husband while undertaking not to commit such mistakes in future. She has further stated that the deceased had suicide tendencies, that without his fault, she committed suicide and that respondent No.4 has not received any cash, jewellery or other articles from the petitioner and her husband at the time of marriage. The party-in-person stated that after being released on bail, respondent No.4 has been constantly threatening her and her husband and that they are facing life threat from respondent No.4. With regard to the relief claimed in the Writ Petition, namely, that the police shall seize the cash and jewellery from respondent No.4, in the absence of any proof in support of the petitioner’s plea, it is not possible to grant any relief in this regard. Moreover as two criminal cases are pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to render any finding on various pleas raised by the parties in this Writ Petition. In so far as the petitioner’s apprehension of life threat from respondent No.4 is concerned, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 denied any such threats being given by her client. However, if the petitioner or her husband receives any such threats from respondent No.4, they are entitled to lodge appropriate report before respondent No.3. If such report is received by respondent No.3, he shall take suitable action in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.7659 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:23.08.2010 Usd