IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT YDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.4177 of 2008 Between: Chinta Arun Kumar, S/o.late Ch.V.Prasad, aged 26 years, R/o.Flat No.102, Sindu Enclave, IIIrd Phase, K.P.H.B.Colony, Hyderabad - 072. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt., of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, R.R.Dist., 4 The Circle Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, Balnagar Division, Hyderabad-072. 5 D.Prasad, S/o.not known, R/o.flat No.101, Sindu Enclave, IIIrd Phase, K.P.H.B.Colony, Hyderabad-072 ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent police in harassing the petitioner in calling to Police Station from 22.02.2008 without registering any crime at the instance of 5th respondent is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent police not to interfere with the petitioners life and liberty without due process of law in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.4177 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents-police in harassing the petitioner in calling to the Police Station from 22.02.2008 without registering any crime at the instance of the fifth respondent as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to the respondents-police not to interfere with the petitioner’s life and liberty without following the due process of law. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record. In the affidavit, the petitioner alleged that he is an employee in Apollo Health Center, that the fifth respondent is his neighbour, that suddenly the fifth respondent approached the fourth respondent-police and at his instance, the petitioner was summoned by the fourth respondent to the Police Station on 22.02.2008 and that accordingly, the petitioner and his family members attended the Police Station, where was allegedly asked to sit in the Police Station. The petitioner further alleged that the fifth respondent was present at that time in the Police Station and made some gestures against the petitioner and that though the petitioner questioned the fourth respondent as to in what connection he was summoned, without giving any reply, he asked the petitioner to sit in the Police Station till he comes back after attending to his duty in connection with the visit of the former Chief Minister. The petitioner further alleged that after taking undertaking from him, he was allowed to go home for taking lunch and dinner. He further alleged that on 24.02.2008, the respondent again harassed him at the instance of the fifth respondent. The petitioner asserted that his verification through his counsel revealed that no crime was registered against him. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that in connection with the missing of a cheque relating to the fifth respondent, crime No.202 of 2008 was registered and in connection therewith, the petitioner was summoned to the Police Station for the purpose of investigation. He also submitted that the respondents have no intention of harassing the petitioner nor they have harassed him. He further stated that in the crime registered, the petitioner is not shown as an accused. If the petitioner was summoned to the Police Station for the purpose of investigation, no exception can be taken. But in the guise of conducting investigation, the respondents cannot harass the petitioner by depriving his personal liberty and humiliating him, as if he committed the offence. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of. The fourth respondent is directed not to deprive the petitioner of his personal liberty or commit any act, which could lower his dignity in the society in the name of investigation into the alleged crime. It, however, does not mean that the fourth respondent is precluded from acting in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in investigating the crime, which is stated to have been registered at the instance of the fifth respondent. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 10th March 2008 Note: CC by three days B/O RRB