High Court for State of TelanganaWP/41231/2014disposed of no costs

Devaguptam Ramu, S/O.Satyanarayana, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

2015-01-19Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETTENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.41231 of 2014 BETWEEN Devaguptam Ramu.

... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Petitioner and third respondent are husband and wife and their

marriage appears to be subject matter of matrimonial dispute in O.P.No.66 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge, Rajole, East Godavari District filed by the petitioner seeking divorce. While so, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner alleging that, at the instance of the third respondent, the second respondent is repeatedly calling the petitioner to the police station and threatening him, which amounts to sheer harassment.

2. Instructions received by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, however, show that the second respondent is aware of the pendency of the divorce OP, referred to above and it is denied that the respondent police have ever visited the house of the petitioner and also summoning of the petitioner to the police station.

It is specifically stated that as of now no complaint or FIR is registered against the petitioner on the file of the second respondent police station and hence, the question of summoning the petitioner does not arise.

3. Since there is no complaint lodged against the petitioner, as per the aforesaid instructions, in my view, there is no cause of action to entertain the present writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is 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 January 19, 2015 DSK