IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3008 of 2002 Between: R.Madhav Reddy, S/o.Narsimha Reddy, R/o.Damannapeta, Vardhanapet Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Anjaneyulu, The Station House Officer, Vardhanapet Mandal, Warangal District. 2 Sri Surya Narayana, The Circle Inspector, P.S. Vardhanapet Mandal, Warangal District. 3 The Deputy Suprintendent of Police (Rural), Hanmakonda Rural, Warangal District. 4 The Superintendent of Police, Warangal, Warangal District. 5 The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District. 6 The Deputy Inspector of Police, Warangal Range, Warangal, Warangal District. 7 The Director General of Police, Police Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad. .....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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in Nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the action of the 1 & 2 Respondents in torturing and grievously injuring the Petitioner as being violation of life and liberty guaranteed Under Article 21 of Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th Respondents to initiate disciplinary action such as Removal from Service & for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- from 1 & 2 Respondent as Compensation and pay the same to the Petitioner for the grievous Injuries and Trauma undergone by the Petitioner in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3008 of 2002 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to a false complaint given by his daughter-in-law, a case in Cr.No.216 of 2001 was registered against him, his daughter and son-in-law for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by the 1st respondent on 11-12-2001 and in that connection, the petitioner along with his daughter and son-in-law approached this court and obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.124 of 2002 on 21-01-2002 for their release, in the event of their arrest on each of them executing a bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent. It is stated that pursuant to the said order, dated 21-01-2002, the petitioner along with his daughter, son-in-law and sureties went to the police station on 28-01-2002 at 8.00 a.m., but the 1st respondent having perused the surety papers, they were made to wait till 9.00 p.m. and then, directed them to come on 03-02-2002. On 03-02-2002, when they went to the police station, they were asked to come on the next day. On 04-02-2002, when they went to the police station, the 1st respondent did not accept the sureties and in fact demanded them to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, and settle the matter. It is stated that again they went to the police station on 06-02-2002 requesting to accept the sureties and release them on anticipatory bail. On that day, the 1st respondent, without accepting the sureties, directed the petitioner, his daughter and son-in-law to sign on blank papers and also abused them in filthy language. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent not only disobeyed the order of this court, but also misbehaved and harassed the petitioner and his daughter and son-in-law and demanded them to pay Rs.2,00,000/- and also refused to accept the sureties without any justification whatsoever. It is stated that though a complaint has been filed before the Superintendent of Police on 08- 02-2002, no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in torturing and grievously injuring the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct respondents 4 to 7 to initiate disciplinary action against respondents 1 and 2 and also direct them to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counters denying all the allegations made in the writ affidavit. A counter has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 7 stating that pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner to the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent directed the 3rd respondent to verify the contents of the complaint given by the petitioner and take necessary action. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent gone through the contents of the complaint and examined the petitioner and caused enquiries with regard to the contents of the complaint and found that all the allegations made in the complaint are incorrect and false and accordingly, he dropped the action on the said complaint. Insofar as the averment made in the writ petition that the petitioner, his daughter and son-in-law went to the police station on 28-01-2002, it is stated that the petitioner, his daughter and son-in-law did not went to the police station on 28-01-2002, because as per the evidence available on record, his son-in-law, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Tekulapally Police Station, Khammam District, was on duty on 28-01-2002. It is further stated that in fact the daughter of the petitioner was admitted in Kranti Maternity Hospital, Kothagudem, on 30-01-2002 in connection with her delivery and she was discharged from the said Hospital on 06-02-2002 and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he, his daughter and son-in-law went to the police station on 28-01-2002 cannot be accepted. It is further stated that the sureties obtained valuation certificates with regard to immovable properties from the Gram Panchayat only on 05-02-2002 and, therefore, the question of producing surety papers on 28-01-2002, 03-02- 2002 and 04-02-2002 does not arise. In fact, on production of sureties, the petitioner was released by the 1st respondent on 07-02-2002. In view of the categorical denial of all the allegations, I am of the opinion that the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to establish the aforesaid allegations in an appropriate constituted forum. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 26-06-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}