IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 20746 of 2014 BETWEEN Yashodhar Uppalapati 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 respondent No.2 is interfering with the civil litigation between him and respondent No.3. Petitioner had earlier approached this court by W.P.No.32347 of 2013, wherein relief was sought for against the Authorised Officer, Pre-Litigatory Council Forum from interfering with the petitioner’s security. By order, dated 20.11.2013 this court disposed of the said writ petition by recording that the said Pre- Litigation Council Forum is only a voluntary arrangement and since the petitioner is not willing to appear before the said Forum, respondent No.3 therein shall not compel the petitioner to appear before him. Petitioner states that after the said order also respondent No.2, at the instance of respondent No.3, is interfering with petitioner’s personal life. It is further stated that petitioner, who is a software professional, is having properties and on account of the alleged interference his affairs are being affected.
3. Learned Government Pleader has secured instructions from respondent No.2, on the basis of which he states that respondent No.3 has filed a private complaint before IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, against the petitioner and others, which has been forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Patamata police station, Vijayawada, for investigation and report; that based on that Crime No.483 of 2014 has been registered on 01.06.2014 and the investigation is taken up; that the complainant as well as two other witnesses are stated to have already been examined by the police; that the presence of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation; that all the accused are absconding; that based on the evidence adduced during the course of investigation, the case would be finalized at the earliest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not aware of registration of any private complaint and the crime based therein; that petitioner has no objection for cooperating with the investigating officer in investigating the said case and that as and when required petitioner would go and appear before the investigating officer. However, the petitioner’s civil rights in profession and other affairs cannot be interfered with.
5. In view of the said statement on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner, the Commissioner of Police shall direct the investigation officer to issue notice to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer in terms of Section 41 Cr.P.C. and follow the procedure and then complete the investigation 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 August 5, 2014 LMV