IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7270 of 2009 Between: Dosapati Venkata Nageswara Rao S/o. Venkatewara Rao R/o. Vysya Kundanapu Vari Street, Pathapeta, Nuzivid, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Eluru West Godavari District. 2 Dosapati Satya Lakshmi W/o. Venkata Nageswara Rao R/o. 69-12-12A, Rajendra Nagar Bank Colony, Sarpavaram, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.V.RAMANA FOR MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.2: ----- The Court made the following : ORDER: Complaining of unlawful interference by respondent No.1 with the life and liberty of the petitioner in a matrimonial dispute between him and respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that respondent No.2 approached the Human Rights Commission of Andhra Pradesh with a complaint against the petitioner, that the said complaint was forwarded by the Commission to the Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District, for enquiry and report, that the Superintendent of Police, Eluru, in turn, forwarded the said complaint to respondent No.1 for enquiry, that a detailed enquiry into the said complaint was held and that an enquiry report was submitted by him to the Superintendent of Police, Eluru. He further stated that in connection with the holding of enquiry, he summoned respondent No.2 and made enquiry, and that on coming to know about the same, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition anticipating that a criminal case may be registered against him. It is further stated that the enquiry revealed that the local Police have no jurisdiction, that there was no substance in the complaint of respondent No.2 and that further action was dropped. Respondent No.1 denied the petitioner’s allegation of his deputing one constable to the petitioner’s residence on 05-04-2009 and interference in the matrimonial dispute. No reply-affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1. Having regard to the categorical statement of respondent No.1 that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 did not deserve any action and that the Police are not interfering with the petitioner’s life and liberty, this Writ Petition is disposed of as infrcutuous. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.9531 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 3rd July, 2009 lur