IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.21565 of 2009 Between: T.Brahmanandam. … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, retpd., by is Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Venugopal. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 to R.8 & R.10. None for R.9. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.10 to issue suitable instructions to respondent No. 7/8 not to interfere with the trial of pending cases in C.C.No.442 of 2007 and S.C.No.98 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Markapur and Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, respectively, either directly or indirectly. I have heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, representing respondents 1 to 8 and 10. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, narrated a long history depicting how respondent No.8, who was impleaded in his personal capacity as respondent No.7, has developed personal prejudice against him. All those events pertain to the year 2002. The petitioner has figured as accused in three cases earlier, out of which two ended in his acquittal. Presently, S.C.No.98 of 2007 is pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur. The petitioner’s apprehension is that, in view of the past events, respondent No.7 is trying to meddle with the trial of the aforesaid pending criminal cases by trying to influence the witnesses to depose against him. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.7, wherein he has stated that all the allegations made against him are motivated; and that the aforesaid Sessions Case is pending against the petitioner. It is averred that on a private complaint given by the petitioner against respondent No.7, the case was taken cognizance by the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Markapur, as C.C.No.442 of 2007 for the offence under Section 323 IPC; and that quash proceedings filed by respondent No.7, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are pending before this Court, in which this Court granted interim stay of his arrest. It is further averred that consequent on the petitioner filing Writ Petition No.21224 of 2002 and the directions given by this Court in the said Writ Petition, the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, issued a charge memo to him. Respondent No.7 has stated that he has never harassed or threatened the petitioner at any point of time nor is trying to pressurize the Police not to produce evidence against him in the trial of the criminal case registered against him. Respondent No.7 assured that he will never interfere with the trial of the pending criminal cases. In view of the categorical denial of the allegations made by respondent No.7 and the assurance given by him that he will never interfere in the trial of the pending criminal cases, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate on the truth or otherwise of the allegations or counter-allegations made by the petitioner and respondent No.7. In the event respondent No.7 unduly interferes with the pending criminal cases, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 with a detailed representation and material in support thereof. If such a representation is received by respondent No.3, he shall hold a dispassionate enquiry into the allegations and take appropriate action, if such allegations are found correct. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:1-7-2010 MNR