THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.25151 OF 2008 Date: 24.09.2009 Between:- Uppala Shankar and others .. Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District and others. .. Respondents ORDER: The writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in harassing, humiliating, manhandling, abusing and illegally detaining the petitioners and the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 01W 5007 with reference to Crime No.163 of 2008 dated 08.11.2008 of Traffic Police Station, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents not to harass the petitioners in any manner with regard to the said crime. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is owner of a Goods carriage – HMV of Tata Motors Limited bearing registration No.AP01W5007. He engaged petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as drivers in relation to the contract of supply of coal to M/s.Gupta Coal Washeries. During the course of transit on 08.11.2008, an unidentified vehicle met with an accident in which, a person by name Jakkula Thirupathi Rao died while he was undergoing the treatment. The brother of the deceased-Jakkula Satyanarayana had lodged a complaint with the third respondent, who registered the same as a case in Crime No.163 of 2008 on 08.11.2008. It is further stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4, without any basis or evidence, have detained the vehicle of first petitioner on 09.11.2008 at about 1.30 p.m. while the third petitioner was in duty as a driver. Later, respondent Nos.3 and 4 called petitioner No.2 to the police station and manhandled him with shoe and detained him for a long time in the police station. Further, they coerced him to admit that the accident was caused due to the vehicle of petitioner No.1 and the respondents are repeatedly harassing the petitioners with abusive language by calling them to the Traffic Police Station and visiting their houses frequently and forcing them to accept that the accident was caused by the vehicle of petitioner No.1. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, with an oblique motive, are bent upon harassing the petitioners to admit the accident. It is the further case of the petitioners that in fact, the vehicle of petitioner No.1 had not involved in the case, that the same has been implicated falsely. Hence, the writ petition. On the other hand, respondent No.3 filed a counter denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Interalia, it is stated that the lorry driver, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, hit the splendor, left the vehicle at the scene of offence and ran away. In search of the vehicle which caused the accident, the police contacted the Lorry Owners’ Association knowing the fact that petitioner No.2 left the lorry abandoned. On that the police seized the vehicle (lorry) and produced before the Court below. The allegation of the petitioners that the respondents have been repeatedly harassing the petitioners with abusive language by calling them to the Traffic Police Station and visiting their houses and forcing them to accept that the accident was caused by the vehicle of petitioner No.1 is false, baseless and invented for the purpose of filing the present petition. But it is stated by respondent No.3 that the lorry, which caused the accident, is certainly belonging to petitioner No.1. In the investigation, it is disclosed that the lorry driver, who caused the accident, is not having any proper license. It is stated that the respondents never summoned the petitioners nor retained them. They are not shown as accused in the said crime. Investigation is going on in all angles to find out the clues. To divert the attention of the investigating officer, the petitioner rushed to this Court and filed this writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that though petitioner No.1 is the owner of the alleged crime vehicle, according to him, the said vehicle is not involved in the alleged accident. But, however, the police had registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(A) and 337 I.P.C. and consequently, the petitioners were subjected for the harassment. Counter has been filed by the Inspector of Police denying the allegation of harassment of the petitioners and their family but basing on the information received by them, a Crime was registered and as such, they came to know that crime vehicle is belonging to petitioner No.1. Therefore, it is for the investigating agency to proceed with the case in accordance with Law. Therefore, the petitioners have not made any case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 24th September, 2009 AMD