THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.962 of 2008 Date: 04.03.2008 Between: Takur BalajiSingh … Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, CB.CID, Lakdi ka Pul Hyderabad And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Masthan Naidu Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Home HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.962 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in harassing the petitioner in connection with crime No.39 of 1995 as illegal and violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he is working as a Junior Assistant in Kodavaluru Mandal Office, Nellore district; that his sister got married to one Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad about 25 years back and that they have been residing at Hyderabad for the last about nine years. He further pleaded that he is not having relations with his sister or brother-in-law in view of certain severe family disputes; that on 20.12.2007, the petitioner received a notice from the CB-CID wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner’s brother-in-law is an accused in Crime No.39 of 1995 and hence, the petitioner’s presence is required by respondent No.2 for investigation on 26.2.2007, that the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and was examined by him by recording the statement and that since then the police attached to respondent No.1 have been frequently telephoning and questioning him about the whereabouts of the petitioner’s brother-in-law. The petitioner further averred that he told the police that he has no contacts with the accused and that despite the same, the petitioner was detained on 26.12.2007 when he visited the office of the respondents and on 20.1.2008 the police of respondent No.1 visited the petitioner’s house in the mufti dress and created panic among the petitioner’s family members by giving an ultimatum that the petitioner would face severe consequences if he does not hand over Krishna Kumar. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit in which it is mentioned that on a complaint lodged by the Assistant Secretary to the Government, Education Department, Crime No.39 of 1995 was registered under sections 468, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the CID police station, that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the prime accused Krishna Kumar @ Krishnam Naidu, who is the brother- in-law of the petitioner ran a private correspondence college under the name and style of Kalyani Correspondence College, Hyderabad and collected 34 application forms of the students who did not have any service experience and forged the service certificates with the signature of M.R.Os., Head Masters and the D.E.O of Mahaboobnagar district and submitted them to the Director, Vocational Education, Osmania University, Hyderabad for B.Ed., entrance examination conducted in the year 1994. It is further averred that the investigation revealed that the petitioner’s brother-in-law cheated the innocent public and was arrested by the Warangal police in connection with crime No.40 of 1992 and he was also arrested by the Adilabad police in Crime No.24 of 2004 and was enlarged on bail and that he is not attending the courts and therefore, non-bailable warrants are pending against him. It is further stated that in the investigation it was revealed that the petitioner is having amicable relations with the family members of the accused and that in order to know the whereabouts of the accused, notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioner and that the CID police did not record the statement of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that he appeared before respondent No.2 and was examined by recording his statement is denied as false. The respondents also denied the allegation that the police of respondent No.1 have been frequently telephoning the petitioner to know the whereabouts of his brother-in-law and that he was being threatened with dire consequences. Heard Sri C.Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. The pleadings of the parties show that the petitioner is not an accused. There is no allegation that the petitioner is involved in the crime said to have been committed by Sri Krishna Kumar and others. It is also not the allegation of the respondents that the petitioner is harbouring Krishna Kumar. Therefore, it is not proper on the part of the respondents to intrude into the privacy of the petitioner and pester him to reveal the whereabouts of Krishna Kumar merely because he happens to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner. It is the duty of the investigating agency to find out the whereabouts of the accused through lawful methods. No doubt, the respondents made a flat denial of any harassment meted out to the petitioner. It is not possible for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to give a finding on the veracity of the statement of the respondents, inasmuch as these disputed facts cannot be decided without recording the evidence of the parties. Be that as it may, in view of the denial by the respondents that the petitioner is not being harassed, this Court is not inclined to give any positive directions to the respondents except to the extent of observations already made hereinabove and a direction that in the process of finding the whereabouts of the accused in the pending criminal case, the petitioner cannot be harassed. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.1147 of 2008 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:04.03.2008 mdaa