Smt B.Nirmalabai v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2337 of 2014 ORDER:

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2.

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:- "...to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondent in calling the petitioner and the petitioner son-in-law (Mukesh) to the police station, time and again, and instructing the petitioner to settle the amounts in favour of the third respondent herein, as illegal, void and arbitrary and without authority and direct the respondents 1 & 2 not to harass or otherwise call the petitioner to the police station, thereby direct the respondents not to interfere with the personal life in the interest of justice and pass..." 3.

The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contended inter alia that for the purpose of enquiry on the petition submitted by the 3rd respondent, the respondent police have summoned the complainant's daughter's mother-in-law Smt.B.Nirmalabai, i.e., the petitioner herein, and her son-in-law Mr.Mukesh to the police station on 20.01.2014 and enquired about the truth and veracity of the contents of the complaint as well as subsequent events. The petitioner and her son-in-law approached the 1st respondent and they voluntarily admitted their guilt and promised to settle the matter within three days by placing the matter before the

PKR, J W.P.No.2337 of 2014 family elders. Later, the petitioner and her son-in-law went away. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition on mere apprehension. It is also mentioned in the counter-affidavit that no case of whatsoever is registered against the petitioner herein or her son-in-law on the file of the Lalaguda Police Station. Except in connection with the petition lodged by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent never summoned the petitioner and her son-in-law to the Police Station. They are not required in any case registered on the file of the Lalaguda Police Station. As far as the allegation of the petitioner that the 1st and 2nd respondents have been calling the petitioner to the police station on 12.01.2014, 16.01.2014 and 18.01.

2014 and insisting her to settle the amounts as demanded by the 3rd respondent or else the respondents would implicate her and her son-in-law in false cases is absolutely denied. The allegation of the petitioner that the 3rd and 4th respondents with the help of the 1st and 2nd respondents and the local elders have threatened her and her sonin-law with dire consequences and are interfering with the civil disputes is also absolutely denied. It is also further stated that on mere apprehension that the petitioner may be apprehended, as a precautionary measure the present writ petition has been filed with baseless allegations.

4.

Though a counter-affidavit is filed with specific averments, no reply affidavit is filed rebutting the allegations made in the counteraffidavit. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that

PKR, J W.P.No.2337 of 2014 there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 11th November 2019 mar