HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.Nos.17844 of 2010 & 18606 of 2010 Dated: 27-09-2010 W.P.No.17844 of 2010 Between: Smt.Sirisha & Another …Petitioners AND G.Shiv Kumar & others. Respondents. W.P.No.18606 of 2010 Between: G.Shiva Kumar Yadav …Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, P.S. Begumpet, Begumpet, Hyderabad and others. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO W.P.Nos.17844 of 2010 & 18606 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) These two writ petitions are interconnected and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.17844 of 2010 is filed by wife and husband who got married on 17.7.2010 against the wishes of the parents of the first petitioner as both of them fell in love with each other. It is their contention that the father of the first petitioner, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.18606 of 2010 instigated the second respondent-Station House Officer, Begumpet Police Station to forcibly take away and detain second petitioner-husband of first petitioner and the second respondent police personnel are asking the second petitioner to come down to police station along with first petitioner; that the petitioners are apprehending danger in the hands of the police, and therefore, they seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in harassing the petitioners and trying to arrest their family members as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, sought for a direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioners, their family members and a direction to respondents-police to take action on the representation made by the first petitioner on 19.7.2010 by providing police protection to them from the illegal activities of the father of the first petitioner. Whereas, petitioner in W.P.No.18606 of 2010, who is the father of first petitioner in W.P.No.17844 of 2010 filed the writ petition alleging that his daughter, aged about 18 years, left the house on 17.7.2010 and did not return home. He lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Begumpet Police Station on 18.7.2010 and on the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.229 of 2010 was registered under the head ‘girl missing’ but so far, no action has been taken. Hence he seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action on the complaint made by him and direct them to produce his daughter before this Court who is under illegal detention of the third respondent (second petitioner in W.P.No.17844 of 2010). A counter affidavit has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad stating that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner in W.P.No.18606 of 2010, a crime has been registered and investigation is taken up. Flash message has been issued to all the Station House Officers of twin cities about the missing of the daughter of the complainant, look out notice has been prepared with the photograph and descriptive particulars of the alleged detenue and the same was sent to all the police stations in the State. Meanwhile, the wife of the petitioner in W.P.No.18606 of 2010 filed a complaint before the A.P. State Human Rights Commission alleging inaction on the part of the police in tracing out her daughter (first petitioner in W.P.No.17844 of 2010), in which, the police filed a detailed report before the Human Rights Commission along with the marriage certificate sent by the alleged detenue-first petitioner in W.P.No.17844 of 2010. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing on 20.9.2010, this Court directed the police to produce the Case Diary in Crime No.229 of 2010. Pursuant to the same, the Case Diary has been produced before this Court, which discloses that the alleged detenue- petitioner in W.P.No.17844 of 2010 has appeared before the State Human Rights Commission on 31.8.2010 and on the said date, the parents of the detenue i.e. the petitioner in W.P.No.18606 of 2010 and his wife were also present; that the Human Rights Commission after examining the alleged detenue, directed the police authorities not to interfere with the matrimonial affairs of the petitioners in W.P.No.17844 of 2010 and since the alleged detenue is a major, it directed the police to allow her to live with her husband and in-laws. At that stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.18606 of 2010 took time to ascertain the factum of production of the alleged detenue before the State Human Rights Commission and the orders passed by it. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.18606 of 2010 represented that the petitioner instructed him to withdraw the writ petition and accordingly, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission is accorded and the W.P.No.18606 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Coming to W.P.No.17844 of 2010, inasmuch as the State Human Rights Commission has already directed the police officials not to interfere with the matrimonial life of the petitioners therein, we direct the police officials to provide all necessary protection to the petitioners as and when they require to lead happy marital life and, if, any complaint is lodged by them about the harassment from any quarter, prompt action should be taken by registering a crime against the person who interferes with the matrimonial life of the petitioners. With the above direction, W.P.No.17844 of 2010 is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 RAJA ELANGO, J. Tsr.