IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 34673 of 2014 BETWEEN Siraj Farooqui AND ... PETITIONER 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. Petitioner filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police on 09.08.2014 that on account of the matrimonial dispute between him and respondent No.6, the father of respondent No.6 is pressuring the petitioner and visiting him along with rowdy elements. Alleging that no action is taken by the Commissioner on the said complaint, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Instructions received by the learned Government Pleader from the Station House Officer, respondent No.4, are that on the complaint of respondent No.6 alleging physical and mental harassment to her by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.145 of 2014 was registered under Section 498A IPC. However, on 05.09.2014, when the matter was placed before the Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, the petitioner and respondent No.6 were present and on the advice of the Legal Services Authority, both the parties agreed for an observation period of 90 days. Thereafter also it appears that respondent No.6 made a further oral complaint that the petitioner is not following the compromise settled before the Legal Services Authority. Respondent No.4, therefore, contends that in order to advice the petitioner that he should follow the orders of the Legal Services Authority for settlement, he was called to the police station. However, without approaching respondent No.4, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. It is evident from the above, that the Legal Services Authority is already seized of the matter and advised observation period of three months for implementation of the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.6 before the authority. In view of that, respondent No.4 shall not take any precipitative action. The Legal Services Authority is free to take appropriate decision in accordance with law after the observation period is over and thereafter pass appropriate orders.
With the above observation, the writ petition is 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 3, 2014 LMV