IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.14355 of 2007 Between: K.Subramanyam. … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District And two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt. A.Padma. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 & R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seeking to entertain the complaint given by respondent No.3 after compounding Crime No.310 of 2007 dated 3-4-2007 and interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner stated in his affidavit that while the petitioner and respondent No.3 were working as colleagues in a Company, respondent No.3 lodged a complaint against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was harassing her; and that the said complaint was registered as Crime No.310 of 2007 on 3-4-2007. The petitioner further averred that both the parties compromised the matter by filing a petition before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, and on reference to Lok Adalat the offence was compounded and the criminal case was closed on 5-4-2007. The petitioner alleged that even after compounding of the offence, respondent No.3 started sending e-mails to the petitioner by threatening him and abusing him on phone; and that at the instance of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has been calling the parents of the petitioner to the Police Station and giving threats to them. No counter-affidavit is filed by any of the respondents. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home stated that since the offence is compounded, there is no reason for respondent No.2 to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner. She, however, stated that unless the petitioner has committed a fresh offence, respondents 1 and 2 would not interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner. This statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is taken on record and the Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s life and liberty except on the basis of any complaint received from respondent No.3 or any other person disclosing commission of any cognizable offence. In such an event, respondent No.2 shall follow due process of law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 11-4-2008 MNR