IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13093 of 2009 Between: Sri Narapareddy Dorababu S/o.Prathap Reddy D.No.1-111, Apparaopet, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District. 4 The Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District. 5 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District. ..... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.MD.YOUNUS Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner, whose purported complaint, dated 24.06.2009, against one V.Ramesh Babu, Managing Director of M/s. V.R.Rural Equipments and Consumables Pvt. Ltd. Company, was registered by respondent No.5 as Crime No.788 of 2009 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, filed this Writ Petition to declare that the said complaint was secured by respondent No.5 by force, threat and using undue influence. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. The petitioner’s case is that he is working as Mandal Manager of M/s. V.R.Rural Equipments and Consumables Pvt. Ltd. Company, in Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. According to him, the said company is involved in collecting comprehensive data/information of every person in the State, regarding their social, economic, financial, physical and psychological status, to provide biometric smart card to every individual enumerating the entire information therein. The petitioner further averred that when some of its employees were detained by the Police of West Godavari District, the said Company filed W.P.No.7913 of 2009 against them and when the Police tried to interfere with its administrative activities, it has filed another Writ Petition, viz., W.P.No.12019 of 2009, wherein this Court granted interim direction to the Police not to detain the employees of the said Company without there being any First Information Report or complaint registered. The petitioner further averred that on 24.06.2009, when he went to the Company’s Head Office at Road No.1, Oasis Towers, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, the police, who were already present there, took him into their custody, and later took him forcibly to the Kukatpally Police Station and threatened and coerced him to write a complaint in his own hand writing against the said Company. It is further stated that the petitioner has, therefore, succumbed to the pressure brought by the Police and wrote a complaint and signed therein stating that the Company has illegally collected money ranging between Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- from about 14,000 people in the entire state and that the petitioner, who is among the persons, who made such payments, attended the office of the Company and found that the office was closed and that the Managing Director of the company cheated him and various others. The petitioner stated that on 30.06.2009, he tried to give a representation to the “Kukatpally Police” with a request to permit him to withdraw the said complaint but they have not received the same and abused him in filthy language. A perusal of representation dated 30.06.2009 shows that copies were marked to respondent Nos.1 to 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that copies were not sent to any of the said respondents so far. Except the ipse dixit of the petitioner that representation, dated 30.06.2009 was not received by respondent Nos.4 and 5, he has not produced any evidence of his approaching them. Be that as it may, the question whether the petitioner gave a complaint voluntarily or under the threat of respondent No.5 cannot be decided in this Writ Petition, while exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to send his representation to respondent No.2. If such a representation is received, respondent No.2 shall cause an enquiry to be held and if it is found in the enquiry that the petitioner has not given the complaint voluntarily, he shall issue necessary instructions to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to permit the petitioner to withdraw his complaint. If respondent No.2 comes to a converse conclusion, the petitioner shall be free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with appropriate complaint. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.16949 of 2009 and 16950 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd July, 2009 kl/lur