THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.9762 of 2009 Date: 05-10-2009 Between: P.Mahaboob Basha … Petitioner And The State of A.P., Home Department, Secretariate, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.9762 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in harassing the petitioner to appear before him or else he would be inducted in a false case, as illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and also violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner by frequently calling him over phone. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 3rd respondent, P.Masthanai, is the wife of the petitioner and due to marital disputes between them, the petitioner applied for divorce and eventually the 3rd respondent was declared as divorcee with effect from 18.05.2005. As a counterblast to his application, the 3rd respondent made a complaint against the petitioner and his family members under Section 498-A and under Dowry Prohibition Act. After due trial, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 27.06.2003. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent forcibly entered into mother’s house of the petitioner and occupied the house. Aggrieved by the same, the mother of the petitioner filed a suit against the 3rd respondent seeking for declaration of the title. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent with a view to harass the petitioner and his family members filed a case in Crime No.55 of 2004 under Sections 498-A, 324, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and the same was registered as SC. No.117 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. After due trial, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 20.03.2009. At this juncture, it is mentioned that the 3rd respondent and her family members were threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. On 25.04.2009 the petitioner received a call from the 2nd respondent asking him to appear before the 2nd respondent before sunset otherwise he would be implicated in a false case. Apprehending arrest and physical harassment in the hands of the 2nd respondent, he did not go to the 2nd respondent on 25.04.2009. Since then the 2nd respondent continuously giving calls over his phone and harassing him without any reason. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, denying the allegations of the petitioner, counter has been filed. Based on the said counter, the learned Government Pleader, inter alia, submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent a case in Crime No.55 of 2004 was registered under Section 498-A, 324, 307 read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, the 2nd respondent called the petitioner, 3rd respondent and other witnesses. Thereafter, the same was registered as Sessions Case No.17 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. After the trial, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 20.03.2009. It is specifically denied by the 2nd respondent that on 25.04.2009 the petitioner was called over his phone and threatened him if he is not present before him. In this regard, he specifically submitted that he never called the petitioner on 25.04.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the petitioner was called by the 2nd respondent on 25.04.2009 over phone, he has no necessary to file the present writ petition at all meeting expenditure. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the 2nd respondent never called the petitioner on 25.04.2009 and threatened him and there is no substantial evidence to show that the petitioner was called by the 2nd respondent on that particular day. Prima facie, it appears that there was dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and based on the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent, during the course of investigation, called the petitioner, 3rd respondent and other witnesses and registered the case. Thereafter, he never called the petitioner, is the categorical submission by the 2nd respondent. Having no substantial evidence to show that the petitioner was called by the 2nd respondent over his phone and threatened him, it is difficult to place reliance mere statement made in the affidavit. Having regard to the categorical denial by the 2nd respondent that he called the petitioner over phone on the particular day, recording the same, I deem it appropriate to close the writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 05.10.2009 LSK