IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17050 of 2006 Between: Gorji Venakta Ravi Kumar, S/o.Late Simhachalam, R/o.Mothevari Thota, Plot No.64, D.No.24B-9-6, Eluru, W.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Station House Officer, Eluru, II-Town L&O. P.S., W.G.District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in arbitrary and negligently lodging the FIR no.210 of 2006 U/s. 174 of Cr.P.C. by mi-utilize the Section 174 Cr.P.C., s itself illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Article 226 of the Constitution of India consequently to quash the FIR No.210 of 2006, pending at Ii-town Police Station, Eluru, W.G.District.” When WPMP.No.21374 of 2006 came up for hearing on 03.06.2009, no one represented the petitioner. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the case, this Court directed WPMP and the Writ Petition to be posted under the caption “for Dismissal”. Today, when both these petitions are posted, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in default. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition in default, WPMP.No.21374 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th JUNE, 2009. kvni