P ACHARYA NAGARJUN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in a case which was not registered by the Police. The petitioner submits that although there was no Police case registered against him various allegations have been levelled against him by his wife in the Women's Protection Cell and there is threat of his arrest. The facts leading to such an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner are stated as below.

(2.) The petitioner got married on 20th November, 1992. After marriage therewere some disputes between the husband and wife and according to the petitioner these disputes were not real but were created because of the caste of the petitioner and he was subjected to cruelty, unfounded allegations were made against him, he was intimidated and insulted. The petitioner is working as Lecturer in the Department of Micro Biology, Osmania University, Hyderabad. He also submitted that the marriage had been performed in accordance with the laws of Christianity and he had also not demanded any dowry from the other side. He further states that he had come to know that his wife could not bear any children but inspite of that he never wanted to break the marriage but his wife deserted him and for more than 2 years now she is living separately. Since the petitioner was deserted by his wife for 2 years and he failed in his efforts for reconciliation, he filed proceedings before District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for dissolution of the marriage. The wife approached the Women's Protection cell and made certain allegations against the petitioner and the counselling Cell summoned the petitioner, but no reconciliation could take place. The petitioner further stated that the Police authorities on 3-9-1998 served a notice on the petitioner directing him to come to the Women's Protection Cell for further counselling. He states that he would be subjected to harassment and would be implicated in certain criminal cases. He apprehended arrest by the Women's Protection Cell, therefore filed this petition.

(3.) When this case came up before the Court on 7-9-1998 this Courtentertained the petition and directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested on the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner with regard to matrimonial disputes. Affidavits were filed and a detailed order was passed by this Court after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the petitioner on 12th October, 1998. The order is reproduced below: