IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22498 of 2007 Between: 1 Pulluri Sudhir Kumar, S/o. Rajaiah, R/o. H.NO. 8-5-267/1 old, 8-5-432, New Raghavendranagar, Karimnagar. 2 Pulluri Rajaiah, S/o. Muthaiah, R/o. H.NO. 8-5-267/1 old, 8-5-432, New Raghavendranagar, Karimnagar. 3 Pulluri Anjamma, W/o. Rajaiah, R/o. H.NO. 8-5-267/1 old, 8-5-432, New Raghavendranagar, Karimnagar. 4 Peddi Umarani, W/o. Niranjan, R/O. H.No. 4-3-86, Near Aslam Mosque, Rajiv Chowk, Karimnagar. 5 Peddi Niranjan, S/o. Venkataiah, R/O. H.No. 4-3-86, Near Aslam Mosque, Rajiv Chowk, Karimnagar. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. 3 The Station House Officer, Siricilla Police Station, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in calling the petitioners to the police station and threatening to settle the matter as per his dictates, even though already a criminal case in Crime NO. 295 of 2007 of P.S. Sircilla was registered against the petitioners, and not receiving the sureties of the petitioners No.3 and 4 by the respondents No.3 is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondents No.2 and 3 not to harass and not to call the Petitioners to the police station and not to make them to sit in the police station and not to threaten them to settle the matter as per the terms dictated by the respondents No.2 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22498 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in calling the petitioners to the Police Station and threatening to settle the matter as per his dictates in spite of pendency of crime No.295 of 2007 of Sircilla Police Station and not receiving sureties produced on behalf of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 by respondent no.3 as arbitrary, illegal and void. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to harass and call the petitioners to the Police Station. The averments contained in the affidavit filed by the petitioners show that matrimonial disputes persist between the petitioners and the wife of petitioner No.1 and her parents. In connection with the said disputes, the petitioners got anticipatory bail from the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar on 24.07.2007 subject to certain conditions, which included providing sureties. The petitioners allege that respondent No.2, at the instance of the de facto complainants, has been harassing them by frequently calling them to the Police Station and making them to sit for long hours. They further allege that though petitioner Nos.3 and 4 sought to comply with the condition imposed in the order granting anticipatory bail in their favour, respondent No.3 has not been accepting the same and harassing them. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit in which he denied the allegations of harassment of the petitioners. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that in the Case Diary, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are shown to have been absconding and therefore, respondent No.3 could not accept the alleged sureties. Since the contentions raised in the Writ Petition fall in the realm of disputed facts, I am not inclined to go into the same in this Writ Petition. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners assert that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are not absconding and they are prepared to furnish sureties, respondent No.3 is directed to accept the sureties being offered by petitioner Nos.3 and 4. For this, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are directed to appear before respondent No.3 within ten {10} days from today and on such appearance, respondent No.3 shall accept the sureties and grant bail in pursuance of the order dated 24.07.2007 passed by the learned Judge. Respondent No.2 is directed not to harass the petitioners in the guise of investigation into the criminal case. If the petitioners are harassed by respondent No.2 in future, they are permitted to file a private complaint against respondent No.2 before the jurisdictional Magistrate apart from making a representation to the District Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar for taking appropriate action against him. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th March 2008 Note: CC by four days B/O RRB Copy To: 1 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. 3 The Station House Officer, Siricilla Police Station, Sircilla, Karimnagar District. 4 Two CCs to GP for Home (OUT). 5 Two CD copies.