IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10757 of 2009 Between: Bommagani Chakrapani, S/o. B. Venkataiah, APNPDCL, Wardhannapet, R/o. H.No. 1-5, Kota Venkatapuram Village, Sangem Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Hanamakonda Police Station, Hanamakonda, Warangal District. 2 The Station House Officer, Sangem Police Station, Sangem, Warangal District. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, Warangal. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondents 1 and 2 have been unduly interfering with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner at the instance of his wife, with whom he has serious differences. The petitioner married one Nyalam Jyothi, D/o Komariah of Boorgumadla Village, Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangla District on 09-03-2000. As differences arose between them, the petitioner’s wife gave a complaint to respondent No.1, which was taken on file as Crime No.478 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of offences under Protection of Civil Rights Act (Special Mobile Court), Hanmkonda as C.C.No.360 of 2005. Another crime was registered at the instance of the petitioner’s wife as Crime No.205 of 2009 on the file of respondent No.1 police station. The petitioner alleged that as his wife secured the job of Home Guard, she was able to influence respondent No.3, under whose control she has been working. He alleged that as respondents 1 and 2 were repeatedly calling him to the police station and beating him and his old aged parents, his father gave a complaint to respondent No.2 on 20-03-2009. He also alleged that respondents 1 and 2 forcibly broke open the lock of his house at Venkatapuram Village, Sangem Mandal, Warangal District on 26-02-2009 and ordered the petitioner and his family members not to reside in the said house as his wife had exclusive right over the said property. The petitioner is stated to have lodged a complaint with respondent No.2 in respect of the said incident and his grievance is that no action was taken thereon. The petitioner made serious allegations against respondent No.2 in unduly interfering with his personal life and liberty and that of his parents at the instance of his wife. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter-affidavits. Respondent No.2, in his counter-affidavit, stated that while the petitioner sent a petition on 28-02-2009; his parents also submitted a petition on 20-03-2009 against his wife and others; that respondent No.2 called both the parties to the police station apart from visiting the house of the petitioner and enquired from the elders of the village. He further stated that the village elders informed him that there is a dispute between the petitioner, his parents and his wife and that the petitioner and his parents started harassing the petitioner’s wife and that thereupon, he advised the petitioner and his parents not to harass the petitioner’s wife. As rightly pointed out by Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 had no power or authority to interfere in the matrimonial disputes of the petitioner and his wife. Respondent No.2 has mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the complaint given by the petitioner’s wife was already taken cognizance of by the jurisdictional Magistrate and the criminal case is pending as C.C.No.360 of 2005. Therefore, there was no need for respondent No.2 to play the role of a conciliator and advise the petitioner on how he should treat his wife. In the considered view of this Court, respondent No.2 exceeded his limits as Police Officer in interfering with the matrimonial disputes. He is directed not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner and his parents except by following due process of law. If any such interference is made by respondents 1 and 2 in future, the petitioner shall be free to complain to respondent No.3, who, in such an event, shall entertain such a complaint and take appropriate action. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.13818 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th June, 2009 vrn