IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 20924 of 2008 Between: K.V.N. Suresh Babu S/o.Nimmeswararao Opp: Jeedimetla Bus Depot, RR District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General of Police, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Nazeamuddin, Circle Inspector, CBCID, Red Hills, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in harassing the Petitioner and his parents for not issuing blank cheques/promotes in favour of some of his known persons who said to have lent money to the brother of the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct them not to harass or foist any flase cases against them and pass such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20924 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in harassing the petitioner and his parents for not issuing blank cheques/promissory notes in favour of some unknown persons as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the third respondent not to harass or foist any false cases against them. According to the petitioner, his younger brother K.Ramprasad has undertaken several businesses at Podili, Prakasam district and suffered losses and finally he filed Insolvency Petition before the Court of law. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the liability of his brother, police are harassing him to execute promissory notes/cheques in favour of creditors of his brother, otherwise they would register false criminal cases against him. Hence the writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by third respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that petitioner’s brother K.Ramprasad borrowed huge amounts totaling to more than Rs.80 lakhs at Podili and moved to Hyderabad and is staying with his brother (petitioner herein). Since the petitioner was not cooperating with the enquiry at Podili, third respondent visited the office of petitioner at Hyderabad, and he was found absconding. In order to prevent the Police from conducting investigation into the matter, he filed the present writ petition. It is further stated that third respondent never forced the petitioner to execute promissory notes/cheques and the petitioner is nothing to do with the liabilities of his younger brother. In view of the above, the respondents may proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner, if necessary, however, they shall not intrude into the privacy of the petitioner and disturb his family peace without there being any reason and without following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 18.11.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20924 of 2008 18.11.2008