IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11671 of 2009 Between: 1 NELA SATYANARAYANA, S/o. late Swami, PHC, Satyanarayanapuram, R/o. H.No.17-1-58/3c, Sriramanagar Colony, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 Nela Supriya, Daughter of Satyanarayana, R/o. H.No.17-1-58/3c,Sriramnagar Colony, bhadrachalam, Khammam District, Mnor, Rep by her Father and natural guardian the 1st Petitioner. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam town Police Station, bhadrachalam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners assailed notice issued by respondent No.1 to them to attend ‘Lie Detector Test’ proposed to be conducted on 15th to 17th June, 2009 at Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, in connection with the investigation in Crime No.95 of 2009 of Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 324, 435 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the 1989 Act’). Petitioner No.1 is the complainant and in her complaint, she stated that two persons named therein committed various acts, which constituted offences under the Indian Penal Code and the 1989 Act. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.93 of 2009 and in connection with the investigation therein, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioners. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he stated that after examining the petitioners and visiting the scene of offence, several discrepancies came to light and on being explained about the same, the Superintendent of Police, Khammam issued a memo appointing respondent No.1 as Investigating Officer with instruction to carry out Lie Detector Test to bring out the truth. Respondent No.1, however, stated that no coercion was used on the petitioners to attend the above-mentioned test. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home conceded that unless the petitioners agree for being subjected to the above-mentioned test, the respondents cannot force them to undergo the said test. Inasmuch the petitioners do not intend to subject themselves to the above-mentioned test and in the wake of the stand of respondent No.1 that the petitioners are not being coerced to undergo the said test, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents not to force the petitioners to subject themselves to undergo the Lie Detector /Polygraph test. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 27th July, 2009 lur