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. 38820 of 2014 BETWEEN Periketi Padma 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. Petitioners, who are wife and husband respectively, allege that petitioner No.1 purchased 100 square yards in D.No.275, Saraswati Nagar, Amaravathi Road, Nagaralu Area, Guntur, and thereafter, petitioner No.2 also purchased another 100 square yards in the same survey number. It is also alleged that one T.Venkata Satyanarayana purchased another extent and like that there were several purchasers of different plots adjacent. Petitioners allege that while they started construction on the said plots, respondent No.5 claiming ownership on the said plots and alleging that he is in possession for 35 years obstructed petitioners from construction. It is further alleged that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are harassing them and putting them under immense pressure and, therefore, respondent No.4 is calling them to the police station repeatedly and harassing them. Petitioners also claim that a representation was given to respondent No.2 on 25.06.2014 to enquire into the matter and protect the petitioners from high handed actions of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Hence, the present writ petition is filed alleging inaction.
3. Instructions received by the learned Government Pleader from respondent No.4 was that respondent No.5 lodged a complaint, dated 04.09.2013, alleging that the petitioners have trespassed, forged and fabricated documents regarding plot Nos.73 and 74 and based on the complaint, crime No.502/13 was registered on 04.09.2013 against the petitioners, who are arrayed as A4 and A5. While the investigation in the said case is pending, petitioners are stated to be absconding and are not co- operating with the investigating officer. Petitioners’ allegation that there was any harassment is denied by stating that petitioners are both absconding and in fact the investigating officer requires to record their statements in order to complete the investigation in the aforesaid crime. Hence, there is no question of respondent No.4 interfering or obstructing the petitioners, as alleged.
4. Evidently, petitioners are accused in a crime, referred to above, and allegedly they are not co-operating with the investigating officer. Since respondent No.4 himself states that they are absconding and are not traced, petitioners’ allegation of any harassment or threat to them by respondent No.4, particularly in obstructing the construction activity etc., is clearly not substantiated. Respondent No.4, however, has to confine himself to the investigation of the crime and take appropriate steps in that regard. This writ petition is clearly misconceived and the allegations of the petitioners are also not substantiated.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 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