THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.21751 of 2010 ORDER: Alleging interference with his personal life and liberty by the respondent police, without there being any crime registered against him, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Petitioner states that he and his wife are running a firm in the name of J.B. Enterprises and engaged in construction activities such as construction of telephone towers on contract basis. While so, in the year 2008, while the construction of a tower of TATA company was going on at Gudihathnoor Cross Roads, Adilabad, one T. Durga Prasad, one of the workers, died due to electric shock and on the matter being reported, the 3rd respondent- Station House Officer, P.S. Gudihathnoor, Adilabad District, registered a crime in Crime No.87 of 2008 and conducted investigation. The investigation revealed that it was a case of sheer accident and nobody is responsible for the death of said Durga Prasad. But however, as a responsible employer and on humanitarian grounds, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- to the parents of the deceased workman, out of which a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited with the Andhra Bank by way of fixed deposit, in the name of the mother of the deceased workman, and thus the parents of the deceased have no claim against him. While so, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent and his staff are instigating the parents of the deceased to claim more compensation from him and when they declined to claim so, the 3rd respondent started calling him to police station and threatening to settle the matter as regards the death of T. Durga Prasad, in spite of the same having been settled two years ago. Thus, the petitioner seeks to declare the action of respondent police in interfering with his personal life and liberty, without there being any crime registered against him, as arbitrary and illegal, and to issue consequential directions. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit, wherein while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that upon complaint lodged by one Bhaskara Rama Rao, Tower Area Supervisor, as regards the death of one Tadlapu Durga Prasad due to electric shock at work site on 22.10.2008, he registered a case in Crime No.87 of 2008 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and proceeded with the investigation. As the statements of the witnesses recorded revealed nothing suspicious about the death of the deceased, after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad, vide memo dated 31.10.2008, and after serving notice to the complainant, final report was filed before the II Class Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar), Gudihathnoor, on 31.10.2008, reporting the death of the deceased as accidental death due to electrocution. But however, subsequently, as per the instructions of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad, dated 25.04.2010, the Circle Inspector of Police, Adilabad, reopened the case, altered the Section of Law from 174 Cr.P.C. to 304 (II) I.P.C., after obtaining permission from the Judicial Magistrate of First Class concerned, and proceeded with the investigation. The Circle Inspector of Police, during the course of investigation, on 13.08.2010, sent the constables to Hyderabad to bring the petitioner who is the contractor, for the purpose of investigation, but at that time he was not available, and subsequently on 24.08.2010, he handed over the photocopies of registration certificate of his firm and a non-judicial stamp paper, but did not furnish contract deed and other documents pertaining to construction of TATA cell tower at Gudihathnoor, and in spite of their best efforts, the petitioner or his supervisor did not cooperate with the investigating agency to record their statements. It is further stated that, except asking the petitioner to handover the relevant documents and contract deed pertaining to TATA cell tower at Gudihathnoor, the respondent police never harassed or threatened him or interfered with his day-to- day activities, and the petitioner rushed to this Court only to divert the attention of the Investigating Officer. It is also categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondent police never instigated the parents of the deceased to claim compensation from the petitioner and they never harassed the petitioner by calling to police station or threatened him to settle the matter as regards the death of the deceased. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Though according to the petitioner the investigation in the crime registered pursuant to the death of his deceased worker at work site, was concluded in the year 2008 itself and it was revealed that the death of the deceased due to electric shock is only a sheer accident, as can be seen from the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, the proceedings in the subject crime are reopened in the year 2010, as per the instructions of the Sub Divisional Police Officer and after obtaining permission from the Magistrate concerned, and that the Section of Law was altered from 174 Cr.P.C. to 304 (II) I.P.C., and the investigation is in progress. The petitioner, in his reply-affidavit, except stating that reopening of the criminal proceedings is not proper, did not bring to the notice of this Court any irregularities or mala fides on the part of the respondent police in reopening the proceedings and conducting investigation afresh. In the absence of any such irregularities or mala fides being pointed out, this Court cannot go into the question whether or not the reopening of the case is proper and thus no interference in that regard is necessitated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the alleged interference by the respondent police with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner is concerned, the 3rd respondent has taken a categorical stand that except asking the petitioner to furnish the contract deed and other relevant documents pertaining to construction of TATA cell tower at Gudihathnoor, which are required for the purpose of investigation in the subject crime and are not furnished by him in spite of repeated demands, they never harassed or threatened him or interfered with his personal life, as alleged by him. In view of this specific denial, which is placed on record, no orders need be passed in the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly closed and the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and submit the relevant documents as required by it in the investigation of the subject crime. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 27th September, 2010 IBL