IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1864 of 2009 Between: 1 Muvva Udaya Shankar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. H.No. 82, N.G.O's Colony, Venugopala Nagar, Guntur City, Guntur District. 2 Muvva Avinash, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. H.No. 82, N.G.O's Colony, Venugopala Nagar, Guntur City, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Mangalagiri Village and Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT 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 respondent herein in insisting the petitioners herein for production of their father to the Police Station for investigation in Crime No. 274 of 2006 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur as illegal, Capricious and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent herein not to interfere in the personal liberty of the petitioners in connection with the said Crime No. 274 of 2006 of Mangalagiri Rural Police Station. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GADE VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The case of the petitioners is that one Late Goli Veeranjaneyulu joined their father namely Muvva Venkateswara Rao in chit as a member of M/s.Sri Ram Chit Funds and took the prize amount of Rs.6,60,000/-, but later, as he defaulted in payment of the installments, he was sued by the Chit Fund Company in O.S.No.174 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, who passed ex parte decree on 17.3.2008. While so, Goli Venkata Subbamma, who is the wife of Goli Veeranjaneyulu, lodged a complaint dated 4.9.2006 with the respondent-Station House Officer, against the petitioners’ father alleging that her husband mortgaged original documents of her house with the Chit Fund Company by forging her signatures. Based on the complaint, FIR No.274 of 2006 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. On coming to know of the registration of a crime, their father, out of fear left their house and did not return home, and their grievance is that the respondent is time and again summoning them to the police station and threatening them to inform the whereabouts of their father and produce him. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondent not to harass them by summoning them to the police station. The learned Government Pleader for Home submits that they have not harassed the petitioners at any time, but as the whereabouts of their father are not known, they were summoned to the police station to give information as to the whereabouts of their father to enable them to complete the investigation. Since the respondent is said to have summoned the petitioners to the police station only to provide information as to the whereabouts of their father, it cannot be said that the respondent has harassed the petitioners or interfered with their personal liberty. Hence, no orders need be passed in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th February, 2009 bcj