IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2164 of 2009 Between: 1 Koppola Gandhi Reddy, S/o. Musal Reddy, R/o. D.No. 42/44, Bose Nagar, Rayachoty Town, Kadapa District. 2 Konda Ranga Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, R/o. D.No. 41/101-D-15, Vinayaka Street, Rayachoty Town, Kadapa District. 3 Syed Naseeruddin Shah, S/o. Ibrahim Saheb, R/o. D.No. 60/24, Nayab Sab Street, Rayachoti Town, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Paradesh, Rep by its Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Kadapa. 2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Police Station, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. 3 Dasari Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, R/o. D.No.41/82-3, Bose Nagar, Rayachoty Town, Kapada District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action 2nd respondent in interfering with the petitioner's private life under the guise of investigation in Crime No. 207 of 2007 on the file of the Rayachoty Police Station, Rayachoty, registered at the instance of the 3rd respondent for the offences under Sections 447, 427 r/w Section of 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power contrary to the settled principles of legal position and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India an consequently direct the respondent Nos. 2 interfere with the petitioner's private life and liberty. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioners claim to have purchased vacant house sites in an extent of Ac.0.48 cents, Ac.0.40 cents and Ac.0.44 cents in S.No.624/2-A of Rayachoty Town, Kadapa District, respectively from one Subbamma under registered sale deeds dated 06.08.2007 and since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the 3rd respondent claiming that he purchased the land in question from Subbamma, filed a suit against her and obtained decree in his favour, and under the guise of that decree, is trying to interfere with the petitioners’ possession. When the petitioners asked the 3rd respondent to furnish copy of the decree and judgment said to have been granted in his favour against their predecessor in title, the 3rd respondent, instead of furnishing copy of the judgment, lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioners making some baseless allegations, and based on the complaint, the 2nd respondent registered a Cr.No.207 of 2007 against them for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC, and it is their grievance that under the guise of registration of complaint, the 2nd respondent, is calling the petitioners to Rayachoty Urban Police Station frequently and threatening them stating that he would open a Rowdy sheet against them. Hence, the petitioners filed the writ petition praying for appropriate directions. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that the Crime registered against the petitioners is No.204 of 2007, but not Cr.No.207 of 200, as mentioned by the petitioners in the writ affidavit, and that after completion of investigation in Cr.No.204 of 2007, charge sheet is filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rayachoty, and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.386 of 2007 and it is pending trial. He has further submitted that the 2nd respondent, except registering crime, neither summoned the petitioners to the police station nor harassed them at any point of time, much less as alleged by the petitioners. Having regard to the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that except registering the crime, the 2nd respondent never harassed the petitioners, much less called them to the police station, and since charge sheet is said to have already been filed, there can be no occasion for the police to call the petitioners to the police station much less for investigation, and in view of the specific denials, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition, and the same deserves to be closed. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 26th February, 2009 bcj