IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10011 of 2009 Between: KUDIPUDI SATYANARAYANA, S/o. Apparao, R/o. Door No.10-2-30, Chinaranganaplaem, Bhimvavaram, West Godavri District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Station House Officer, Chebrole Police Station, Chebrole, West Godavari District. 2 Vadlapudi Venkata Praveen, S/o. V. Krishna, R/o. Unguturu, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in calling the Petitioner to the Police Station in connection with Crime No.151 of 2008 dated 29-9-2008 on the file of the Station House Officer, Chebrole, W.G.District registered as Women Missing on the complaint dated 29-9-2008 given by the 2nd Respondent herein without there was a complaint against the Petitioner herein as arbitrary, illegal and capracious a n d violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Art 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner without following the due procedure of law and pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WP.NO. 10011 of 2009. O R D E R : The case of the petitioner is that on the complaint filed by the second respondent, a case in FIR.No.151 of 2008 was registered on 29-9-2008 by the Station House Officer, Chebrole, West Godavari district as missing his wife since 26-9-2008. 2. It is stated that in the said complaint, no allegations are made against the petitioner. But in that connection, the first respondent is calling the petitioner now and then without any reason whatsoever. It is stated that the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and informed that he is nothing to do with the missing woman case and the second respondent and his wife used to visit the petitioner’s family as they have relation with them. But the petitioner is nothing to do with the said crime. The petitioner has wife, two daughters and a son aged about 21, 20 and 19 years respectively. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in calling him to the police station without there being any complaint or allegation. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent not to call the petitioner in connection with the said crime. But however, if the petitioner is required in connection with the said crime, it is always open for the first respondent to issue a summon and if the petitioner is involved in any crime, it is always open for the Investigating Agency to show him as an accused. But without following due process of law prescribed, the first respondent cannot call him or compel him to sit in the police station. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE V. ESHWARAIAH. 13-5-2009. I s L