THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31483 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioners, 7 in number, are seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in harassing them by calling and making them to sit hours together in the Police Station, as illegal and arbitrary. The third respondent is the wife of the seventh petitioner herein. It appears, there are matrimonial disputes between the seventh petitioner and the third respondent and that the seventh petitioner filed O.P.No.7 of 2007 in Family Court, Visakhapatnam, against the third respondent, seeking divorce, but it was dismissed. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they were not involved in any crime, at the instance of the third respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are calling the petitioners and asking them to sit in the Police Station for hours together and they are being harassed. When the matter was listed on an earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions. Based on written instructions, dated 21.12.2010, sent by the Sub-Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that the third respondent lodged a complaint on 19.11.2010 before the first respondent - Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, stating that on 19.11.2010, her husband/seventh petitioner, in-laws/petitioners 1 and 2 and other petitioners beat her and demanded additional dowry. It is further submitted that such a complaint filed before the first respondent was endorsed and sent to the second respondent - Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for enquiry vide C.C. Cell No.1062 of 2010, dated 19.11.2010. It is further submitted that in view of the said complaint lodged by the third respondent, enquiry was conducted and it revealed that since 2003, the seventh petitioner and the third respondent are living separately and the petitioners did not beat and harass the third respondent for additional dowry as alleged by her. It is further submitted that in view of the said fact, the third respondent was advised to approach the Court of law for redressal. It is also submitted that except enquiry on the complaint lodged by the third respondent, there was no harassment made by respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioners were not asked to sit hours together in the Police Station. When a complaint is filed, it is the duty of the police to enquire into it. Merely because enquiry is conducted pursuant to the complaint lodged by the third respondent before the first respondent, who in turn, endorsed the same to the second respondent, it cannot be said that there is harassment or illegality committed by respondents 1 and 2. However, it is stated now that the enquiry conducted based on the complaint of the third respondent revealed that such allegations of beating and demanding additional dowry by the petitioners are false and the third respondent was advised to approach the Court of law for redressal. Recording such statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 based on the written instructions, dated 21.12.2010, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th JANUARY, 2011. kvni