S MASTHAN SAHEB Vs. P S R ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four writ petitions are filed by different persons of different places against the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Sub-Inspectors of Police and Station House Officers, III Town Police Station and IV Town Police Station, Kurnool. The main complaint in the writ petitions is that the petitioners are against the alleged interference by the police in civil disputes. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader was directed to file counter-affidavits duly sworn to by the Superintendent of Police. Accordingly counter-affidavits have been filed by the Head of the District Police. The matters were heard together and are disposed of by common order.

(2.) The allegations and averments in the affidavits may be noticed briefly. In W.P. No. 19056 of 2001, the petitioner is a businessman dealing in vegetable seeds. The second petitioner is an Advocate at Kurnool. It is alleged that the son of the first petitioner married S. Sameena Afroze in the year 1995. On 22-3-2001, the second son, Ahmed Hussain died due to heart attack. Disputes started over sharing the money of late Ahmed Hussain, which was deposited in S. B. Accounts and by way of Fixed deposits. It is alleged that the daughter-in-law influenced the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool and Sub-Inspector of Police, SP Office, Kurnool and summoned the petitioners to the Office of the Superintendent of Police and tried to force a compromise between her and the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in interfering with civil disputes is illegal and unconstitutional.

(3.) In W.P. No. 23792 of 2001, the case of the petitioner is that he had purchased paddy worth Rs. 2,15,000/- from the father of the 4th respondent and executed two promissory notes for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,15,000/- in his favour and that he had paid the entire amount to the father of the 4th respondent. But, only one promissory note relating to Rs. 1,00,000/- was returned and the other was not returned. The father of the 4th respondent approached the 1st respondent for his help, and the 3rd respondent under the directions of the 1st respondent is pressurising the petitioner by sending Constables for payment of the said amount to the father of the 4th respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in harassing the petitioner by interfering with the civil disputes and false claims made by respondent No. 1 and in the process forcing the petitioner to visit the police station, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with his freedom of life and liberty.