IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.11201 of 2009 Between: Katikam Satyanarayana & another … Petitioners And The Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Ms. Vanga Anitha for Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-5: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11201 of 2009 ORDER:- The petitioners, a young married couple, who entered into wedlock against the wishes of their parents, especially respondent No.6, who is the father of petitioner No.2, filed the present writ petition complaining of interference with their life and liberty by the police and threat to their life at the hands of respondent Nos.6 and 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is inter alia stated that on the complaint given by respondent No.6 that his daughter, Premlatha (petitioner No.2) was missing from his house on 01.06.2009, crime No.107 of 2009 was registered as women missing case. After respondent No.6 and his wife were examined, petitioner No.2 came to the police station on 09.06.2009 along with petitioner No.1 and gave a statement that she married petitioner No.1 on 02.06.209 at Arya Samaj Shradhabad, Saidabad, Hyderabad and produced a marriage certificate issued by the Secretary of Arya Samaj before him. It is further stated that petitioner No.2 has not stated that they apprehended danger at the hands of respondent Nos.6 and 7. He also denied any harassment by respondent Nos.2 to 5 at the instigation of respondent Nos.6 and 7. After obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, respondent No.2 is proposing to file a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate for dropping action. Since respondent No.2 denied the allegations of interference at the instance of respondent Nos.6 and 7, no direction in this regard need to be given to the police. As regards the police protection, the petitioners are given liberty to approach respondent No.2 and thereupon respondent No.2 shall consider their request and act according to law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.14384 and 14385 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.06.2009 ES