IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEITH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 37850 of 2014 BETWEEN Akula Srimannarayana and another AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Home), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Present writ petition is filed by two petitioners, who claim that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are pressurizing and harassing them without following due process of law.
3. Instructions received by the learned government pleader would show that petitioners’ second son got married to Venkata Narayana Subhashini. However, there were some matrimonial disputes, which lead to the wife filing the complaint and registration of F.I.R. viz., crime No.3 of 2009 under Sections 498A, 323, 384, 312, 596 r/w 34, 109 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the said case, after investigation, was numbered as C.C.No.29 of 2010 in which the accused were arrested and produced before II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District and the case was transferred to Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, and re-numbered as C.C.No.3 of 2013, which is pending.
It is stated that the husband of the complainant was released on bail on condition of depositing his passport in the criminal court and thereupon, he sought permission for release of the passport to enable him to go to USA for his job for a period of one year. The said permission was granted for one year, but the accused has not returned. The court below is stated to have issued non-bailable warrants on 20.05.2013 and 11.06.2013 and for executing warrants respondent Nos.2 and 3 have visited petitioners’ house to know the whereabouts of their sons and except making enquiries with the petitioners, the respondent-police neither called the petitioners to the police station nor harassed them, as alleged.
4. Since the instructions specifically show that respondent Nos.2 and 3 only enquired with the petitioners about the details of their sons and that they have not harassed or interfered with the life of the petitioners, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have harassed them. However, if respondent Nos.2 and 3 require any further information or need to record statement of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, they are at liberty to give them appropriate notice under the Code of Criminal Procedure, record their statements and then proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 30, 2014 LMV