An appeal by a father aggrieved by an order dismissing his writ petition against police actions. The High Court upheld the single judge's decision that calling the father for investigation after his daughter's elopement did not constitute harassment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1147 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana)
Aggrieved by the order dated 26-06-2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18145 of 2013, the present writ appeal is filed.
It is the case of the appellant that his son by name P.Sai Kiran Kumar, who is studying B.Tech 2nd year in Vardhaman College of Engineering, Shamshabad, Hyderabad, has eloped with one Srilekha, who is also studying B.Tech 2nd year in the same college. In that connection, the 3rd respondent, who is the father of Srilekha, gave a complaint before the 2nd respondent. Basing on the said complaint, the 2nd respondent registered a case in Cr.No.412 of 2013 and is harassing the appellant by calling him to the police station every day on one pretext or the other. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.18145 of 2013 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent not to harass him and his family members in any manner whatsoever at the instance of the 3rd respondent.
The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides and after perusing the entire material available on record, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the 2nd respondent called the appellant to the police station only for the purpose of investigation and therefore, it cannot be said that he was harassed by the 2nd respondent.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home and perused the material available on record.
Learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the appellant is not arrested and he was only called to the police station for the purpose of investigation and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition.
Once the crime is registered, particularly in a case where a woman is missing, it is the duty of the 2nd respondent to conduct investigation from all aspects of the case. If the appellant is called to the police station for the purpose of investigation, the action of the 2nd respondent cannot be found fault with. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and we see no reason to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ appeal shall stand closed.
N.V.RAMANA, J
_______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J
Date: 18-07-2013 Prv
Appellant
Appellee
N.V. Ramana
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
