IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13836 of 2009 Between: Harijana Narayana S/o.Nanjaiah R/o.S.C. Colony, Sasanakota Village, Pargi Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District. 2 The Sub Inspector of Police, Parigi Police Station, Parigi Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 Narayana Reddy S/o.Lakshmi Reddy R/o.S.C. Colony, Sasanakota Village, Pargi Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.3: ----- The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that his representation made to respondent No.1, against undue harassment and interference by respondent No.2 with his life and personal liberty, is not being considered and disposed of. Heard Sri Kothapalli Ram Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner pleaded that on his complaint that some of his villagers viz., Mahaboob Basha, Rafiq and Janu beat and abused him in his caste name, respondent No.2 registered a case against the said persons; that bearing grudge for giving complaint against his caste men, respondent No.2 abused the petitioner by using his caste name and had put him in the lock up; that the petitioner made a representation on 09-04-2008 to respondent No.1 for taking necessary action, apart from making a similar representation to the State Human Rights commission, which gave notice to the Police; that while the said complaint was pending, respondent No.3 and his followers came to the petitioner’s house, abused him in filthy language, dragged his wife on to the ground and beat her with foot wear; that the petitioner’s wife lodged a complaint, before respondent No.2 against respondent No.3 and his followers, which was registered as Crime No.7 of 2009 on the file of Parigi Police Station; that on the complaint of respondent No.3, a counter case was registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioner and others as Crime No.8 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 452, 354, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’); that the petitioner and other accused filed Criminal Petition No.3290 of 2009 in this Court seeking quashing of Crime No.8 of 2009 and; that this Court granted stay of all further proceedings by Order, dated 13-05-2009. The petitioner averred that thereafter, respondent No.2 called him to the Police Station and abused him in filthy language questioning his action for approaching this Court seeking quashing of the above-said Crime. Complaining of the said highhanded action of respondent No.2, the petitioner is stated to have made representation, dated 13-06-2009, to respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has neither, so far, considered his representation nor conducted any enquiry into the illegal and highhanded action of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Since the petitioner’s grievance is innocuous, it is not necessary for this Court to give any finding on merits of the various pleas of the petitioner on the alleged illegal acts of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It would suffice, if the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to get the petitioner’s complaint enquired into and take suitable action against respondent No.2, if it is found that he is unduly interfering with the life and personal liberty of the petitioner. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.18082 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 13th July, 2009 lur