K. Phani Madhav, v. State Of Telangana,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22155 of 2014 ORDER:

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

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:- "...to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in harassing the petitioners at the behest of respondents 4 to 7 and not registering FIR on the complaints given by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioners and to register FIR on the complaint of the petitioners and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 placed on record the written instructions, dated 13.12.2019, issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad.

4.

From a perusal of the said written instructions, it is revealed that the 2nd petitioner, viz., K.S.Ramanujaneyulu, lodged a complaint on 03.03.2014 with the 2nd respondent against his daughter-in-law and her family members i.e., respondents 4 to 7 herein. In connection with the said complaint lodged by the 2nd petitioner, an entry was made in the General Diary of the Station and called both the parties for the purpose of enquiry and necessary action. During the course of enquiry, it was revealed that there is a matrimonial dispute between them. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent referred both the parties to the 3rd respondent-Women Protection Cell for counselling purpose. On

further enquiry by the 2nd respondent, it was revealed that as part of counselling, the 3rd respondent called both the parties for the purpose of conducting counselling and registered a case on the complaint of the 4th respondent, vide Crime No.270 of 2014, dated 02.09.2014, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. The case ended in acquittal on 24.06.2016, vide C.C.No.22 of 2015 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. It is further mentioned in the written instructions that the contention of the petitioners that the respondents 2 and 3 harassed the petitioners at the behest of the respondents 4 to 7 and not taken action on the complaints lodged by them is totally false.

It is also mentioned that the respondents 2 and 3 did not harass or interfered with the life and liberty of the petitioners, at any point of time. In fact, after conducting a preliminary enquiry on the complaint of the 2nd petitioner, since it relates to a matrimonial dispute, the 2nd respondent referred both the parties to the 3rd respondent for counselling purpose. The 2nd respondent specifically denied that the petitioners were harassed, ill-treated, threatened and intimidated by making demands and summoning them to the Police Station and detained them on 12.06.2014. The allegation that the 2nd respondent along with the respondents 4 to 7 came to house of the petitioners on 30.07.2014 is also denied.

5.

In light of the written instructions placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause would survive in the writ petition and the same is liable to be closed. 6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 26th December 2019 mar