IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3765 of 2005 Between: K.Satya Pal Rao, S/o.K.Raghupathi Rao, R/o.1-8-505, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Station House Officer, P.S.Alwal, Cyberabad. H.No.1-1-27-31, Prakasahnagar Begumpet, Secunderabad-560 003. 2 K.Roja Ramani W/o.Satya Pal Rao H.No.1-1-27-31, Prakasahnagar Begumpet, Secunderabad-560 003. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in harassing the petitioner herein and in seeking to wrongful confine the petitioner at the behest of the second respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and without authority of law and direct the first respondent not to interfere with the life and personal liberty of the petitioner in any manner and pass such further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3765 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in harassing and in seeking to confine the petitioner wrongfully at the behest of the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. A counter has been filed stating that the 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint alleging that her husband, who is the petitioner herein, was kidnapped and wrongfully confined by one Neha Ghouse. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Cr.No.40 of 2005 was registered by the 1st respondent for the offences punishable under Section 342 and 365 IPC. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was traced out at Bangalore and handed over to the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, the case was also referred as “Action dropped”. It is stated that the 1st respondent has not all harassed the petitioner and he was never confined wrongfully. It is stated that the 1st respondent has acted only on the complaint made by the 2nd respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, and in fact the petitioner was traced out and handed over to the 2nd respondent. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 24-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL}