Atkapuram Shankar v. District

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one. in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 7 and 8 in keeping into illegal custody for more than one hour in the NTPC Police station Lock up on the plea of a complaint submitted by the daughter of respondent No.9 and the silence maintained by the respondent No. 7 emboldened the respondent No.9 had caught hold the collar of petitioner shirt and tried to manhandle him before and in the chamber of 7th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, violative of F,rinciples of Natural Justice and also against Article 14,21 of the Constitution 9f lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.7 to register the complaint if arny received by him from the 9th respondent daughter by following the guideline,s given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ArneshKumar Vs. State of Bihar dated 2-7-2014 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 25547 OF 2016) petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidav t filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Tttr respondent to stop harassment to the petitioner and his family members upon the complaint said to have been received from the gth respondent daughter to enable the petitioner to attend his day to day official duties pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for ttre Petitioner: Ms. P. LALITHA KAMESH Counsel for ttre Respondent Nos. 1to7: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8&9: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT P TITION No.20829 OF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...1o rssue a writ order or direction tnore particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondenls 7 and 8 in keeping into illegal custody for more than one hour in the NTPC Police Station Lock up on the plea of a complaint submitted by the daughter of respondent No.g and the silence maintained by the respondent No. 7 emboldened the respondent No.9 had caught hold the cbllar of petitioner shirl and tried to manhandle him before and in the chamber of y'h respondent is itlegat, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and a/so agar)rst Article 14. 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.7 to register the complaint if any received by him hom the gth respondent daughter by following the guidelines given by the Hon ble Supreme Coud in Arneesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar dated 2-7-2014 andpass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble couft may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case... .."

2. None appeared for the petitioner

3. Heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, as per written instructions, the daughter of respondent No. 9 lodged a report dated 20.06.2016 against the petitioner alleging harassment on account of additional dowry. The concerned police, after making preliminary entries, \ called the petitioner and his family members on 22.06.2016. However, the attempt at conciliation did not materialize and, considering the nature of the allegations, the police did not register any crime. However the petitioner contended that he was kept in lockup without registration of any crime on the basis of the complaint lodged by respondent No. 9. Thus, he prays for 2 dismissal of the complaint.

5. I have perused the material on record.

6. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.7, the Station House Officer, ke pt him in illegal custody for one hour and failed to intervene when unof icial respondenVrespondent No. 9 manhandled him, despite not registering any crime. These allegations, however, cannot be accepted rn light of the explanation offered by respondent No. 7. The counter makes it clear that no crime was registered and that, upon receipt of the representation from respondent No. 9, only a letter of counsei was issued in view of the situation. The petitioner's allegations therefore appear to be without sub3tance. lf the petitioner was genuinely aggrieved by the acts of respondent No.9, it was open to hinr to pursue appropriate remedies available under law- ln the absence of such recourse. the contentions raised in this writ petition are found to be without merit. considering also the lapse of time, this Court is of the view that nothing substantial remains in the petition for adjudication.

7. According this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscelaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. B.REKHA RANI ISTANT REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, F l, 3ti g-3"i,, %,?3A.JBilf=",itlT"#t".",i,: i?Iy8l r"r"ns,n, 3. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OLIT] "t I I i i ..'i Y. J, l.- ,l () o THE S 2 3 r[8 ?n:$ * t HIGH CTCURT DATED:18/09/2025 ORDER WP.No.2tl829 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,r\Jx