THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21499 of 2010 Dated: 20.09.2010 Between: Annipaka Venkateswarlu. .. Petitioner. And The Director General of Police, A.P. State Police Head Quarters, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent, at the instance of the 4th respondent, called him to his office on 14.08.2010 and his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank papers. He alleges that he is being called by the 3rd respondent to his office regularly and being threatened to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the 4th respondent. Hence, this petition is filed seeking appropriate relief. At paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated as under: “….It is respectively submitted that the 4th respondent herein Mr.Nakka Abaddanam never approached this respondent nor lodged any complaint against the petitioner herein. It is respectfully submitted that the dispute of the petitioner herein as well as the unofficial respondents appeared to be money transactions and hence this respondent police has nothing to do with it. It submit that the allegations of the petitioner that this respondent at the instance of the 4th respondent is calling him to the office regularly and threatening him to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to him on or before 01.09.2010 and further alleged that on 14.8.2010 this respondent called the petitioner to the office and by force obtained signatures on the blank papers and also at the instance of the 4th respondent, this respondent is threatening the petitioner are absolutely false, baseless and hence the same are denied. It is further respectively submitted that as a precautionary measure to prevent the police from taking any action in future if any one lodges complaint against him, the petitioner rushed to this Hon’ble Court and filed the present writ petition with baseless allegations. I submit that due to bore grudge against the 4th respondent, the petitioner leveled baseless allegations against this respondent.” In the facts and circumstances of the case, the 3rd respondent is directed not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the police station and not to interfere with any civil disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent except as required under the law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 20.09.2010 v v