Writ Petition No. 7087 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

In this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the action of the second respondent – Circle Inspector of Police, Metpally Police Station, Metpally, Karimnagar District, in interfering with his life and liberty, calling him to the Police Station and threatening him to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent – Mohd. Khaja Mohinuddin. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a dispute during mango crop season between him and one person, by name, Akthar, and in that context, the then Circle-Inspector of Police took him to the Police Station and has taken his signatures on a promissory note. It is his grievance that now, the second respondent is insisting him to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent. He stated that he is not aware, who is the third respondent and why such insistence is being made by the second respondent for payment of such sum to the third respondent. Based on written instructions, dated 24.03.2010, sent by the second respondent, is submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that the second respondent has stated that he has taken charge on

10.12.2010, he is not aware of the allegation of taking signatures of the petitioner on any promissory note in 2010 and he never called the petitioner and insisted for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent, as alleged. It is also submitted that the petitioner is having past criminal history and is an accused in Crime Nos.51 and 125 of 2010 and 183 of 2009. Though it is the allegation of the petitioner that the second respondent is insisting him for payment of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that the second respondent has not called the petitioner and not insisted him for payment of such a sum and that the petitioner has past criminal history and there are crimes registered against him as referred to above. Though it is alleged by the petitioner that there is insistence by the second respondent for payment of such amount to the third respondent, there is no material produced by him in order to prove the same. In view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that the second respondent has denied the interference and is not insisting the petitioner for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent as alleged, I dispose of the writ petition placing on record the said statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th MARCH, 2011.