THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR TAKEN UP WP.No.9903 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) A telegram dated 04.05.2009 sent by the petitioner to the Honourable the Chief Justice, is treated as a taken up writ petition. It is alleged that two constables of Market Police Station, Secunderabad have taken away the husband of the petitioner and his whereabouts are not known and that he is not involved in any crime. The petitioner, therefore, requested to take necessary action. 2. On 06.05.2009, this Court granted week’s time to the learned Advocate General to get instructions. Today when the matter is taken up, the learned Advocate General filed counter affidavit of the first respondent together with certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandal. 3. We have heard the learned Advocate General. 4. In the counter affidavit the allegation of detention or arrest on 03.05.2009 or on any other date is denied. It is alleged that the father of the detenu is accused in Cr.No.67 of 2009 under Sections 353, 427, 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in P.S. Balmoor, Achampet Circle, Mahabubnagar District. In connection with the said crime the said Balmoor Police sought assistance of the Marker Police for enquiry and investigation. For the aforesaid purpose, the alleged detenu was brought to the market police station and produced before the Investigating Officer and since the alleged detenu informed the Investigating Officer that he is not aware of the whereabouts of his father, the alleged detenu was let off on the same day and as such, the allegation that the alleged detenu was detained at Market Police Station or at any other police station is not correct. The alleged detenu is moving freely attending to his day-to-day business. A certificate to that effect has been given by the Tahsildar, Secunderabad Mandal, which is produced along with the counter affidavit. 5. From the above, it is clear that the alleged detenu is not unlawfully held in custody. It is, however, apparent that for the purpose of investigation the respondents had taken the detenu to the Market Police Station and such conduct on the part of the respondent – police is, however, quite contrary to the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. If at all, the respondents have to make enquiry with the alleged detenu, they could have issued summons and carried out investigation. However, forcing an individual to attend police station only for the purpose of enquiry and investigation by sending constables to his home and procuring his presence at the police station in this manner is clearly in excess of the powers of the respondents under Cr.P.C. We do not approve of the manner and method in which the respondents have conducted themselves, as referred to above. However, in view of the fact that the alleged detenu is neither in custody nor is unlawfully deprived of his personal liberty, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J May 13, 2009 DSK