WP/24875/2004 of N. Raghava Rao, Vs Commissioner of Police, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 24875 of 2004

Between:

N. Raghava Rao, S/o. Srinivas Rao,

R/o. S-3, C-321, NGO's Colony, Vanasthalipuram, RR District.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saroornagar Zone, RangareddyDistrict.District.

3 The Circle Inspector, LB Nagar P.S. LB Nagar, RR District.

4 The Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar P.S. Ranga Reddy District.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of"Mandamus" declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in seeking to interferewith the civil disputes relating to the partnership firm viz., M/S. MITRAASSOSCIATES, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District as being illegal, arbitrary andunconstitutional and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights andconsequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's rightsin the partnership firm in any manner.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioner states that he submitted two complaints against a firm M/s MitraAssociates, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy district and the said agency, in turn, filedtwo separate complaints against him. It is represented that in relation to thecomplaints submitted by M/s Mitra Associates, cases were registered,investigation was conducted and charge sheets were filed in the Courtsconcerned. The petitioner complains that despite the same, respondents 2 to 4are pressurizing him to settle his disputes with the said agency and subjectinghim to harassment. It is also stated that no further steps have been taken onthe complaints submitted by him. He seeks appropriate directions from thisCourt.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forHome.

It is represented that in the two cases filed against the petitioner by M/s MitraAssociates, the respondents have undertaken investigation and filed chargesheets. If that be so, there does not exist any necessity for them to call thepetitioner to police station. Further, once the cases are registered and chargesheets are filed, respondents 2 to 4 cannot interfere with the civil disputes,much less pressurize the petitioner. It is a different thing, if the petitioner is called to the police station for providing information in relation to the complaintssubmitted by him.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 2 to 4 shall notinterfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and M/s Mitra Associatesnor shall they harass the petitioner in relation to the matters, which are alreadysaid to be pending before the Court concerned. There shall be no order as tocosts.

-----------------------

30.12.2004

Note:Issue CC tomorrow.

(BO)

ksld

To

1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

2 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saroornagar Zone, RangareddyDistrict.District.

3 The Circle Inspector, LB Nagar P.S. LB Nagar, RR District.

4 The Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar P.S. Ranga Reddy District.

5 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT).

6 Two CD copies.