IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.29442 of 2014 BETWEEN Shaik Shabana and another AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners have approached this court alleging that respondent Nos.3 and 4, in particular, respondent No.4, have been harassing the petitioners by calling them to the police station in connection with a crime said to have been registered against some third party.
It is stated that in August, 2014, respondent No.4 detained the petitioners and threatened to disclose the whereabouts of the said accused. However, petitioners state that they were not aware of the whereabouts of the said person.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Home has received instructions, which state that on the complaint lodged by one Md.Rafeeq on the file of II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, stating that his sister Smt.Nasreen Sulthana, W/o.Md.Saleem, R/o.Kashmirgadda, Karimnagar, was murdered by her husband, a case in Crime No.262 of 2014 was registered on 10.08.2014 and investigation was taken up. It is further stated that during the course of investigation it came to light that the whereabouts of the said accused are known to the petitioners only and, therefore, a special team was formed to nab the accused and that team enquired with the petitioners. It is further submitted that so far as the petitioners are concerned, no complaint was received by respondent No.4, nor any case was registered against them. It is stated that the petitioners were neither summoned by the police to the police station nor the police interfered with their life and liberty. It is further stated that petitioners are duty bound to disclose the information to the police and to avoid the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are not aware of the whereabouts of the said accused person and that in spite of their informing accordingly to respondent No.4, petitioners have been harassed.
5. It is evident that a murder charge is being investigated by the police and according to the investigation, the whereabouts of the accused person are known to the petitioners and hence, enquiries were made with the petitioners. Since there is no complaint received nor any case was filed against the petitioners, the allegation as to harassment, as alleged, on the part of respondent No.4, appears unsustainable as only enquires were made with the petitioners during the course of investigation. It is open for the petitioners to approach respondent No.4 and give their statements, if they are not aware of the whereabouts of the said accused. Respondent No.4, shall thereafter record the statements of the petitioners and then proceed further with the investigation in accordance with law. Since no case is registered against the petitioners, their life and liberty shall not, however, be interfered with except 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 October 10, 2014 LMV