IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12334 of 2008 Between: 1 M. Madhu Kishor Kumar S/o. M.C. Yellaiah R/o. 1-2090, Prakashnagar, Kadapa Town and District. 2 Smt. M. Sravanya @ C. Sravanya W/o. M. Madhu Kishor Kumar R/o. 1-2090, Prakashnagar, Kadapa Town and District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa. 2 The Circle Inspector, Rayachoti Circle, Kadapa District. 3 The Station House Officer, Chinna Mandyam Village & Mandal, Kadapa District. 4 C. Subba Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy Kothapalli Village, Malluru Post, Chinna Mandyam Mandal, Kadapa District. 5 C. Narasimha Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy Kothapalli Village, Malluru Post, Chinna Mandyam Mandal, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction mostly one which Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioners and prevent the commission of any offence on the petitioners by the respondents 4 and 5 by declaring the inaction to provide the police protection as unconstitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The 1st petitioner is the husband and the 2nd petitioner the wife. They belong to different communities. Both claim to be majors and to have entered into matrimony on 5.6.2008 against the wishes and incurring the displeasure of the Respondents 4 and 5. The 4th respondent is the father of the 2nd petitioner and the 5th respondent her paternal uncle. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent submitted a false complaint on 6.6.2008 to the 3rd respondent alleging that the 2nd petitioner was missing. This complaint was registered as Cr.No.81 of 2008. It was also asserted in the said complaint that the 2nd petitioner suffers deficient mental ability. In the circumstances, the 2nd petitioner on 8.6.2008 represented to the Respondents 1 to 3 as well as the DIG and IG of Police, Human Rights Commission and others as to the marriage having occurred on her free will and volition. The petitioners also apprehend harm from the Respondents 4 and 5 and they allege in Para (3) of the Writ Petition that the Respondents 4 and 5 are moving along in jeeps in their search. The 1st petitioner-husband claims to belong to Scheduled Caste. In this Writ Petition, in substance, the petitioners seek a fair investigation of the complaint in Cr.No.81 of 2008 on the file of the Police Station, Chinnamandem, Kadapa District as also police protection to the petitioners from any depredation by Respondents 4 and 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit broadly conforming the averments in the Writ Petition with regard to the making of a complaint by the 4th respondent, the registering of it and the pendency of investigation. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that after the initial complaint as to the missing of the 2nd petitioner, on 12.6.2008 the 4th respondent and his wife approached the answering respondent and preferred another complaint to the effect that the 1st petitioner had kidnapped the second. On the basis of this fresh allegation, the 3rd respondent altered the provision of law to Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The answering respondent states that investigation will be fairly conducted and if the petitioners cooperate and the investigation reveals that the petitioners 1 and 2 have married and out of free will and volition of the 2nd petitioner, a final report will be accordingly filed. The learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, states that the respondents are willing to provide police protection to the petitioners. In the circumstances, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 and in particular the first respondent to take administrative measures to forthwith provide protection to the petitioners and to issue appropriate directions for speedy investigation of Cr.No. 81 of 2008, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 20.6.2008 cvm