IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.33858 of 2014 BETWEEN Gudepu Balaiah and another.
AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. Y. ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner No.1 alleges that the third respondent is calling him to the police station frequently without any valid reason and seeks that the said action be declared as wholly illegal.
3. Petitioner No.1 states that the fourth respondent appears to have filed a complaint against the petitioner and alleges that in connection with the said complaint, the police are repeatedly calling him to the police station. An allegation is also made in the writ petition that the husband of the fourth respondent came to petitioner’s house with unsocial elements and threatened the petitioner. It is also alleged that the Sub-Inspector of the third respondent police station is close to the husband of the fourth respondent and their family members and thereby, the fourth respondent is influencing the third respondent. Petitioner states that he has also made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar on 21.10.2014.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home received instructions from the Station House Officer, which specifically state that as on now i.e. 15.11.2014 neither any complaint nor any case is registered against the first petitioner in the third respondent police station. There, however, appears to be a dispute between the first petitioner and the fourth respondent. The allegation of the first petitioner with regard to the Sub- Inspector of Police being close to the fourth respondent is denied and it is also denied that the police have ever interfered with the life of the first petitioner nor summoned him, as alleged. It is specifically, further, stated that the first petitioner is not at all required in any case registered on the file of the third respondent police station and they have never summoned him.
5. In view of the aforesaid categorical statements of the third respondent, the writ petition is filed purely on apprehension and as such, no further orders are necessary to be passed in the writ petition.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 25, 2014 DSK