THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11033 of 2009 Dated 25th August, 2010 Between: R. Balasubramanyam and another. …Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 10: Sri K. Surender Raj for Sri V. Jagapathi The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts of the case show that there are disputes between the petitioners on the one hand and respondent Nos.8 to 10 on the other in connection with certain money transactions between them. Respondent No.8 has filed a civil suit for recovery of certain amount from the petitioners apart from initiating prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882. While the said cases are pending, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition with the allegation that at the instance of respondent No.8, respondent Nos.4 to 7 have been harassing them by insisting that they should repay the amounts allegedly borrowed by them from respondent No.8. The petitioners further alleged that respondent No.8, being a retired Police officer, has abused his position and influenced the Police to interfere with the civil disputes. At the hearing, Sri K. Surender Raj, learned counsel representing Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 10, submitted that respondent No.8 never approached the Police for recovery of amounts due from the petitioners and that to pre-empt his clients’ action for recovery of money, the petitioners have raised false allegations by filing this writ petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the Police never interfered in the disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.8 to 10. Having regard to the abovementioned stands of respondent No.8 and respondent Nos.4 to 7, no specific direction need be issued. The petitioners are entitled to avail their further remedies, in the event Police interfere in the civil disputes between them and respondent Nos.8 to 10 in future. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim orders dated 15.06.2009 in W.P.No.11033 of 2009 and 20.07.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.14178 of 2009 are vacated, and W.P.M.P.No.14178 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.3260 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th August, 2010 GHN