IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELVTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 20684 of 2014 BETWEEN P.Prakash AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner and his four brothers and three daughters are staying in Kurnool at difference places. It appears that the younger brother of the petitioner got engaged to one lady on 18.06.2013, but the marriage could not be performed because of Aashada masam. In the meanwhile, since the fiancee of the petitioner’s brother was unwell, on 23.09.2013 at 10:00 PM petitioner’s brother allegedly took the said fiancee to a Doctor and thereafter both of them are missing. It appears that complaints are filed by the parents of both the children and on the complaint of father of the girl, Crime No.101 of 2013 was registered as a man and woman missing on 14.11.2013 before the Ulindakonda police station. Petitioner now alleges that the investigating officer, respondent No.3 herein, was harassing and visiting the petitioner at odd hours. Aggrieved by the said continuous harassment and visits at odd hours, the present writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus as prayed for.
3. Learned Government Pleader, who has secured instructions, submits that during investigation, investigating officer examined the complainant and other witnesses; that while the efforts are being made to trace out the missing persons, it came to light from the calls list that the missing persons made calls to the petitioner and for that reason, the petitioner was required for the purpose of investigation; that the allegations of harassment or visits at odd hours are, however, denied.
4. It is evident that if there is any material to seek information from the petitioner, the investigating officer is empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure to notify the petitioner to assist the police in the investigation of the said crime. Hence, it cannot be said that steps taken by the Station House Officer in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure in seeking information from the petitioner for the purpose of investigation, is otherwise objectionable. Even the petitioner also states that petitioner is ready to cooperate and furnish information as and when required by the Station House Officer and only the objection is with regard to the visits at odd hours and the harassment to the petitioner.
5. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to complete the investigation by taking all necessary steps including recording of statement of the petitioner, if any, and for that purpose if the presence of the petitioner is required, respondent No.3 may call upon the petitioner to be present before him at a specified date and time and the petitioner shall cooperate with such investigation.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 12, 2014 LMV