IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 8236 of 2004 Between: V.Madhan Mohan, s/o late Munaswamy Naidu, Secretary-cum-Correspondent of Sri Vidyodaya Educational Society, r/o D.No.232, Brundavan Road, Salivahana Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Tirupathi, CCS, Chittoor District. 4 Smt.C.Brunda Devi @ Brunda Prasad, w/o C.S.Prasad, President of Sri Vidyodaya Educational Society, Tirupathi, r/o D.No.232, Brundavan Road, Salivahana Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor. 5 R.V.Chandrasekhar, s/o Raja Sekhar, c/o C.Brunda Devi, President of Sri Vidyodaya Educational Society, Tirupathi, r/o D.No.232, Brundavan Road, Salivahana Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor. 6 M.V.Lakshmipathi, Retd.,Dy.Superintendent of Police, c/o C.Brunda Devi, President of sri Vidyodaya Educational Society, Tirupathi, r/o D.No.232, Brundavan Road, Salivahana Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor. .....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 will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in not responding to the representation dated 18-9-2003 made by the petitioner and further harassing him by detaining him in the 3rd respondent police station under the influence of the respondents 4 to 6 and also not providing protection to the petitioner as he is facing life threat from the respondents 4 to 6 is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and also against the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DORAI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that with regard to civil disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and their family members with regard to functioning of Sri Vidyodaya Educational Society and the educational institutions, the police are unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. A counter has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 stating that a case in Crime No.15 of 1999 for the offence under Section 354 IPC was registered by the Tirupathi West Police Station basing on the complaint of the 4th respondent against the petitioner and the petitioner was acquitted in the said crime vide S.C.No.421 of 1999 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupathi. Further, basing on the private complaint filed by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.14 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 408, 409 IPC was registered against the 4th respondent and four others including the daughter of the 4th respondent by the Tirupathi West Police Station and after investigation it was referred as civil in nature and another case in Crime No.53 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 408, 409 IPC was registered by the Tirupathi Police Station basing on the private complaint of the petitioner against the 4th respondent and her daughter and the same was also referred as ‘civil in nature’ and thereafter on the private complaint filed by the 4th respondent against the petitioner was registered as Crime No.7 of 2003 and the same was referred as non-cognizable. It is stated that the representation of the petitioner dated 18.09.2003 made before the first respondent giving details of various crimes filed by him and the 4th respondent and requesting him to instruct the Tirupathi police authorities not to take hasty decision without verifying the contents of the complaint which was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor for necessary action and the Superintendent of Police after enquiry found that the cases registered against the petitioner were registered basing on the private complaints and as per the decision of the Court concerned. It is stated that the petitioner has not approached or made any complaint before the respondents with regard to the alleged incident on 20.04.2004 and the police never supported the respondents 4 to 6 to file false cases against the petitioner. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the said disputed questions of fact whether the police have harassed the petitioner or detained him in the police station without there being any evidence on record, cannot be decided in this writ petition and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to take appropriate action in the criminal cases before criminal Court concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:17.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}