Maddu Raghavendra Rao v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P.NO.25414 OF 2018

O R D E R

The petitioner is the husband of unofficial respondent No.7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Sub Inspector of Police - 6th respondent, is calling the petitioner and his family members to the police station at the instance of the 7th respondent and forcing them to heed to their terms. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home produced written instructions of the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad, stating that 7th respondent lodged a report on 10.07.2018 against the petitioner, who is her husband and her in-laws, alleging that they mentally and physically harassed her and demanded her to bring additional dowry and further requested to counsel both the parties before initiation of action. Immediately, entry was made in the general diary on 10.07.

2018 and as it is a family dispute, unless parties are counseled, further action cannot be taken. It is stated that after lodging the report, neither the complainant, nor the petitioner approached the respondent - police station for counseling. The allegations of the petitioner with regard to calling him and his family members to the police station and pressurizing him to heed to the terms of the respondent - police, are denied. Recording the above statement, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent - police authorities, not interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner, except in accordance with law.

However, the respondents shall follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in "Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.1" and taking appropriate action in accordance with law. 1 2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 393 (SC)

Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. ----------------------------------------- A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J DATE:30-07-2018 avs