MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT herein instituted WP No. 2509 of 2002 seeking a writ of mandamus or appropriate order directing the respondents to close the rowdy sheet No. 939 opened against him in I Town Police Station, rajahmundry, East Godavari District by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. ( 2 ) IT was mainly contended on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner before the learned single Judge of this Court that on 12. 6. 1996 the elder brother of the appellant sri Vinod Rao, died under suspicious circumstances and it was known that it was a pre-planned murder. The appellant made several representations to the police stating that one K. Satyavathi and her relatives and followers were responsible for the death of his brother. When the police were trying to interrogate the said Satyavathi at the instance of the appellant, she gave a report against the appellant and others alleging offences under Sections 363, 354, 323 and 506 IPC read with 34 IPC, which was registered as a case in Cr. No. 30 of 1997 in Devarapalli Police Station, West godavari District. After completion of investigation police filed charge-sheet against the appellant and nine others, which was numbered as P. R. C. No. 35 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kowur, West godavari District. It was the case of the appellant that he was implicated in the above case falsely at the instance of K. Sathyavathi only to pressurize him to withdraw the report given by him against k. Satyavathi and others. ( 3 ) WHILE the matters stood thus, the appellant filed a suit in O. S. No. 71 of 1999 before the II Addl. District Judge, rajahmundry against his mother, brothers and others seeking partition of the joint family property and that a Commissioner was sought to be appointed, who made inventory of the properties. According to the appellant, in order to wreck vengeance against him for filing a suit for partition of the joint family properties, on 15. 5. 2001 his mother gave a report in I Town Police station, Rajahmundry alleging that on the same day at about 8. 15 p. m. , the appellant tried to beat her with a small iron rod, which was registered as a case in Cr. 5. 2001 his mother gave a report in I Town Police station, Rajahmundry alleging that on the same day at about 8. 15 p. m. , the appellant tried to beat her with a small iron rod, which was registered as a case in Cr. No. 190 of 2001 under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. The appellant alleged that he was falsely implicated not only in the above case, but some other false cases were also filed against him for one reason or the other and as a result of filing of false cases against him, a rowdy sheet was opened against him without there being any nexus between the criminal cases alleged against him. ( 4 ) IN view of the opening of a rowdy- sheet, the petitioner had been facing difficulties to move around freely and that police are visiting his house frequently and even during nights also and causing interference with his personal life and liberty. In this background, the appellant invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, approached this Court seeking appropriate direction in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter has been filed bringing to the notice of the learned single Judge about the various criminal cases, in which the appellant was involved as an accused. It is stated in the counter that a case in cr. No. 30/97 under Sections 363, 354, 323, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the appellant by the police, Devarapalli Police Station, and it is pending before the Assistant Sessions judge s Court, Kovvur in S. C. No. 482 of 2001. A case in Cr. No. 151 of 1997 under sections 420 and 384 IPC read with 511 IPC was registered against the appellant by the Police, II Town Police Station, rajahmundry, and the said case numbered as C. C. No. 348 of 1997 on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, and it ended in compromise in Lok Adalat on 31. 12. 1999. A petty case was also filed against the appellant under Section 290 IPC by the police, I Town Police Station, Rajahmundry and the above case was registered as s. T. C. No. 1070 of 2000 in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- on 21. 12. 1999. A petty case was also filed against the appellant under Section 290 IPC by the police, I Town Police Station, Rajahmundry and the above case was registered as s. T. C. No. 1070 of 2000 in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- on 21. 12. 2000 by the special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, rajahmundry. It is also stated in the counter that a case in Cr. No. 190 of 2001 was registered against the appellant by the police, I Town Police Station, Rajahmundry for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 IPC and it is registered as P. R. C. No. 38 of 2001. ( 6 ) THE learned single Judge, before whom, the writ petition fell for consideration, on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner and in the light of the detailed counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents indicating the involvement of the appellant in so many crimes as indicated above, came to the conclusion that no justifying reasons are shown for interference, however directed the respondents to renew the case of the petitioner after disposal of the aforementioned crimes in accordance with law, by order dated 8. 3. 2002. ( 7 ) AS against the order of the learned single Judge, the matter has been brought before the Division Bench of this Court in w. A. No. 646 of 2002. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, it would appear to us that a mention was made before the division Bench of this Court by the learned senior Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is likely to get married shortly and if the order of the learned single Judge is not suspended, serious prejudice would be caused to the appellant, which would impair the reputation of the appellant and his family members. Agreeing to the above submission and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned division Bench of this Court directed the respondents not to harass the appellant for a period of two months from the date of the order, which is dated 15. 4. 2002. Agreeing to the above submission and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned division Bench of this Court directed the respondents not to harass the appellant for a period of two months from the date of the order, which is dated 15. 4. 2002. ( 8 ) DURING the course of the hearing of the writ appeal by us, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that immediately after expiry of the interim direction granted by the learned Division bench, the respondents again started harassing the appellant resulting in great prejudice to the appellant and therefore, prays this Court to direct the respondents not to harass the appellant and close the rowdy- sheet opened against him. ( 9 ) IN order to know the implications arising out of the submissions, we required the learned Government Pleader for Home to file a detailed counter indicating the position as to the involvement of the appellant-writ petitioner in any criminal cases. A counter affidavit is filed, which is sworn in by Sri N. B. M. Murali Krishna, sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police station, Rajahmundry, who is the 4th respondent. It is stated in the counter that the appellant is involved in three more criminal cases viz. , Cr. No. 160, 324 and 353 of 2002 which were registered by the 4th respondent against the appellant on the specific complaints made before him by the complainants therein. In fact Cr. No. 160 of 2002 was registered for the offences under sections 506 and 509 IPC on 7. 4. 2002 i. e. , prior to the expiry of the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is further stated in para 3 of the counter that Cr. No. 324 of 2002 was registered on 15. 7. 2002 against the appellant for the offence under Section 509 IPC basing on the written complaint dated 15. 7. 2002 of one Yetcharla Chinna Rao alleging that the appellant has been teasing his daughter kumari Hemalatha on her way to computer classes, using filthy language. It is also alleged in the said complaint that on 15. 7. 2002 around 8. 00 a. m. , the appellant pelted a stone at the house of the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the appellant was arrested in the above crime on 16. 7. It is also alleged in the said complaint that on 15. 7. 2002 around 8. 00 a. m. , the appellant pelted a stone at the house of the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the appellant was arrested in the above crime on 16. 7. 2002 around 11 a. m. and was produced before the II Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, rajahmundry on the same day i. e. , 16. 7. 2002 at 3 p. m. , along with charge sheet and later was released on bail on 17. 7. 2002. It is further stated in the counter that Cr. No. 353 of 2002 was registered against the appellant on 28. 7. 2002 for the offences under Sections 452, 323 and 506 IPC on the basis of the complaint of one S. Sankara rao, by the Asst. Sub-Inspector, I Town p. S. Rajahmundry and later Section 7 of a. P. Prohibition Act was added to the above crime on 3. 8. 2002 as the appellant was found in possession of 5 liters of illicit distilled arrack on 3. 8. 2002 at the time of his arrest. He was produced before the n Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class magistrate, Rajahmundry on 4. 8. 2002 and was remanded to judicial custody. The respondents plead that in the background of several criminal cases, it would be difficult for the respondents to close the rowdy sheet maintained against the appellant as the appellant is a habitual offender. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the learned senior Counsel, a case in Crime No. 160 of 2002 was registered against the appellant, on which basis the respondents are making efforts to apprehend the appellant though he does not figure as one of the accused in the said case. Counsel submitted, in that background, when an application was filed seeking anticipatory bail for the appellant in the competent Court, the Court observed that the appellant need not be granted anticipatory bail only on apprehension that he will be arrested in Crime No. 160 of 2002. Learned senior Counsel submits in the guise of this observation of the Court, the respondents are bent upon apprehending the appellant and in that process, harassing the appellant. Under these circumstances, counsel pleads this Court to take judicial notice of the events and pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned senior Counsel submits in the guise of this observation of the Court, the respondents are bent upon apprehending the appellant and in that process, harassing the appellant. Under these circumstances, counsel pleads this Court to take judicial notice of the events and pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 11 ) WE have also heard the learned Government Pleader for Home. ( 12 ) ON the basis of the submissions, it would appear that the appellant was admittedly produced before the competent first Class Judicial Magistrate in connection with few cases on 15-7-2002. The Magistrate granted bail in one case and in another case, remanded the appellant to judicial custody. Admittedly, when the appellant was produced before the competent Court on two occasions, he never complained of any harassment or ill-treatment by the police. Nothing prevented the appellant from complaining to the Court if at all he was harassed and ill-treated by the police. As held by the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 , when an accused is produced before an appropriate judicial forum, it is obligatory on the part of the Judicial Officer to make, an enquiry from the accused as to whether there was any harassment on the part of the police and shall record the statement of the accused if the accused complains of any harassment. A Division Bench of this court in Jitteboina Guruvaiah v. Officer On special Duty, Anti-Naxalite Squad, kothagudem, 1999 (3) ALD 585 = 1999 (3) alt 672 , reiterating the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the above case on further made it mandatory for all the courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh to follow the directives issued by the supreme Court. In view of the directives of the Courts, if the appellant was harassed or ill-treated by the police after his arrest, the appellant is at liberty to complain to the magistrate when he was produced before such Magistrate about harassment or ill- treatment and the Judicial Officer is under an obligation to record the statement and shall be entitled to take appropriate action. ( 13 ) NOTHING is stated before this Court that the appellant had, in fact brought to the notice of the Judicial First Class magistrate when he was produced before such Magistrate on two occasions about the harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of the police and the Magistrate failed to record his statement. In the absence of any efforts made by the appellant in this regard though law permits him to do so, it is difficult for us to hold that the respondents are harassing the appellant and are bent upon creating problems, as pleaded by the learned senior Counsel on his behalf. ( 14 ) LOOKING to the facts and in the light of the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is difficult for us to agree to the request made by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to extend the interim direction granted by the Division Bench of this court during pendency of this appeal on 15-4-2002 for an indefinite period. Since the respondents have categorically stated in the counter that the appellant is involved in few criminal cases which are pending, we are of the view, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge requires no interference. ( 15 ) FOR all reasons, we dismissed this writ appeal. No costs.