HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11827 of 2008 Date : 18.08.2011 Between : Hagalwadi Rajesh. …..Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Director General of Police & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11827 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is working as a Software Engineer at M/s.Maxis Software Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. It is stated that his brother Mr.Subhash Chandra Kumar was married to Ms.Sailaja on 11.02.2007 at Rajahmundry and they stayed for some time in Hyderabad, and thereafter, they left to Chennai, where his brother was working. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though there was matrimonial dispute between his brother and sister-in-law, and he is in no way concerned with the aforesaid crime, in view of registration of crime against his brother, the respondents are harassing the petitioner by visiting his office along with Police belonging to P.S.Madhapur. It is submitted that as no crime is registered against him, there is no authority or jurisdiction to the respondents either to call the petitioner to the Police Station or to interfere with his work in the office. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhadrachalam Town Police Station. In the counter, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that one Smt. Kambhampati Sailaja, daughter of Ramasubrahmanyam, aged about 23 years, has lodged a complaint in P.S. Bhadrachalam stating that her marriage was solemnized on 11.02.2007 with Mr. H.Subash Chandra Kumar (brother of the petitioner), but he is harassing her mentally and physically to bring additional dowry, and hence, requested to take action. On the above said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.136/2007 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on 02.07.2007, and investigation is taken up. It is stated that the respondent-Police are in search of the brother of the petitioner and as no details are forthcoming, the address of the petitioner was obtained from the younger brother of accused No.1 and son of accused No.2. It is stated that having come to know of obtaining such address, expecting that the Police will question him about his brother’s whereabouts, this writ petition is filed making baseless allegations. It is further stated that the respondents have never summoned the petitioner to the Police Station for the purpose of inquiry or any investigation. At the stage of admission, this Court, by order dated 11.06.2008, directed the respondents not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioner, except by due process of law. Even in the counter affidavit, there is no allegation against the petitioner except the case stated to have been registered against the brother of the petitioner on the complaint lodged by his sister- in-law. In the absence of any allegation against the petitioner, and as it is stated that the petitioner was not summoned to the Police Station as alleged by him, and further, taking into account the interim order passed by this Court on 11.06.2008, which is continued all along, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner, as no complaint is lodged against him. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th August 2011 ajr