R. Sreenivasan, v. The Station House Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.1235 of 2015 BETWEEN R. Sreenivasan.

... PETITIONER AND The Station House Officer, Banajara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad and others.

...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard.

2. This writ petition is filed alleging that petitioner is being harassed by respondent No.1, at the instance of respondent No.3, without there being any crime registered against him and in spite of the fact that the petitioner and his employer, respondent No.3, have civil dispute regarding payment of salaries and arrears.

3. Instructions of the learned government Pleader, however, show that petitioner, who was working with respondent No.3, was holding key position

and he seems to have resigned by sending an e-mail on 01.06.2014. However, respondent No.3 complained that the petitioner has kept the property of the company i.e. laptop, data card and car apart from important documents, certificates and files of the company and demanding huge money to return back the said property.

Based on the contents of the said complaint, made by respondent No.3, a case in crime No.1508 of 2014 was registered before respondent No.1 and the investigation in the said crime is under progress.

4. The instructions, further, state that petitioner's whereabouts are not known and notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. dated 26.12.2014 also could not be served as he has vacated the premises. It is, therefore, stated that petitioner's presence is very much required in connection with the said case and the allegation that he has been harassed etc. is totally incorrect.

5. Evidently, petitioner is accused in a crime, as mentioned above and respondent No.1 is duty bound to conduct investigation in the said crime and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The very premise of the petitioner that no case is registered against him having been found incorrect, no orders can be granted to the petitioner. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 4, 2015 LMV