IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.9787 of 2009 Between: Kola Kesava Kumar … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Home, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Y.V. Srinivasan Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9787 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in harassing the petitioner and his family members, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner’s life ran into rough weather with his marrying a person by name Haritha against the wish of her parents. After his filing a Habeas Corpus petition in this Court and its closure, the petitioner’s wife moved away from him and has been presently living with her parents. Two crimes have been registered against the petitioner on the complaint given by his wife, one being crime No.996 of 2008 under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is re-numbered as crime No.227 of 2008 after it was transferred to Devarapally police station from S.R. Nagar police station. The second case being crime No.89 of 2009 registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 506(2) IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner made serious allegations of interference by respondent No.4, who is also impleaded in his personal capacity as respondent No.5, with his life and personal liberty. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 has been making the petitioner’s life miserable by unduly interfering with the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and his wife. He lamented that every day respondent No.4 has been using the gym, which is situated by the side of the petitioner’s house and on his way back, he has been knocking at the door of the petitioner and insisting him to give divorce to his wife. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, he denied the allegations of harassment. He averred that investigation into the abovementioned two crimes is pending. He assured this Court that necessary charge sheets or final report would be filed depending upon the outcome of the investigation. Of late, instances of harassment by police have been on increase. The police, who were expected to protect law and order and investigate into the offences, are not expected to indulge in harassment of the citizens. If there is any semblance of truth in the allegations made against respondent No.4, the same is abominable and in a society governed by rule of law, such a conduct on the part of police does not augur well. As the petitioner failed to submit cogent material to support the allegations of harassment by respondent No.4, this Court is unable to give specific finding thereon. But, however, respondent No.4 is cautioned not to interfere with the life and personal liberty of the petitioner under the guise of investigation into the criminal cases. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12721 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.06.2009 ES