IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5184 of 2008 Between: Golla Manorama Devi W/o Dayavardhana Rau R/o No. 7-6-846/14, G/2, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep byits Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Sub Inspector of Police (Crime) Arundalpet, Guntur, Town, Guntur District. 3 Bathina Bharati W/o Satyanarayana R/o D. No. 7-11-15, 3rd Line, Kakumanuvaripeta, Guntur district. 4 Golla Dayavardhana Raju S/o Abraham R/o No. 5/1, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of house bearing No. 7-6-864/14, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Guntur, under the guise of investigation into pending criminal case against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. In her affidavit, the petitioner alleged that she was a legally wedded wife of respondent No.4 and that her husband left the matrimonial home leaving their children to her ten years ago and he executed a possessory agreement of sale in her favour before he left the house and possession was delivered to her. She averred that she went to Hyderabad in connection with the treatment of her second child and after her return to Guntur on 26.01.2007, she found that lock of the house was broken open and household articles such as double cot, iron safe, utensils were missing and that her enquiries revealed that respondent No.3 and another along with some rowdy elements broke opened the locks and took away the household articles. When she approached respondent No.3, she stated that the articles were with her and that she wanted the petitioner to vacate the premises as she claimed to have purchased the same from respondent No.4. Apart from threatening the petitioner, respondent No.3 lodged a complaint against her under Sections 420 and 384 IPC before V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, who referred the same to police for investigation and filing a report. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2, Sub-Inspector of Police (Crime), Arandalpet, Guntur town, taking advantage of the complaint filed against the petitioner, has been approaching her everyday in the name of the investigation and harassing her to vacate the premises at the instigation of respondent No.3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Arandalpet filed a counter affidavit. In paragraphs 5 and 6 he averred as under: “I respectfully submit that the allegation of the petitioner made in para No.6 of the affidavit, to the effect that this respondent is taking advantage under the name of investigation, threatened them to vacate the house, or else she will be facing serious consequences is false and hence denied. The allegation of the petitioner that this respondent is approaching her every day under the name of investigation and harassing her to vacate the premises at the instigation of the 3rd respondent is false and hence denied. I respectfully submit that I never harassed the petitioner at any point of time. I submit that I never interfered with the civil disputes as alleged by the petitioner in her affidavit. I never asked the petitioner to vacate the premises as alleged in the affidavit. The petitioner might have filed the present writ petition to prevent the police from taking any action on the private complaint lodged by the petitioner 3rd respondent against her. All the other allegations made in the affidavit are false, concocted and invented for the purpose of this writ petition and hence the same are denied.” In view of the above-reproduced statement of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Arandalpet Police Station, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. However, if the said Police Officer interferes with the life and liberty of the petitioner in future, the petitioner is at liberty to file complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Guntur against the said Officer. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.6728 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st APRIL, 2008 kvni