IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 13790 OF 2006 Date:27.07.2006 BETWEEN: Shaik Abdul Rafeeq …. PETITIONER And 1. The Station House Officer, Balanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, and others. …. RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner alleges harassment by the police i.e., respondents 1 to 6, namely, in calling him to the Police Station regularly. It is also alleged that the respondents 1 to 6 are making the petitioner to pay amounts in respect of the petitioner’s conduct of buying stolen property from Abdul Wasim. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent categorically and unequivocally denying the allegations that the petitioner is being coerced to pay the amounts. With regard to the allegation that the petitioner is being harassed by being called by the police regularly, the counter affidavit states that based on the complaints of one Mr. Rahul Agarwal, S/o. Rajender Kumar Agarwal, Prop. Of Anil Steel Industries, IDA, Balanagar and Mr. K. Ramakrishna, son of K. Ranga Rao, Managing Director of Vizag Steel, Balanagar, cases were registered against one Abdul Wasim @ Daniel @ Agarwal @ Anil Agarwal @ J.P. Yadav @ Rajender Reddy, S/o. Abdul Aleem resident of Flat No.301, Rainbow Residency, S.V. Nagar, Nagaram, R.R. District and also the petitioner herein, in Cr.Nos.152/2006 alleging offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC and Crime No.10/2006 under Sections 468, 420 IPC on the file of the first respondent P.S. According to the counter affidavit, the first accused, namely, Abdul Wasim confessed to offences of theft of steel and to having sold the stolen property to the petitioner. The counter asserts that there is evidence in both the crimes registered that the petitioner is in receipt regularly of stolen property. Counter states that charge sheets were also filed before the concerned Court of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, and that the petitioner was being interrogated during the process of investigation for the aforesaid offences. In the light of the assertions made in the counter affidavit, no case is made out for interference. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (Goda Raghuram, J.) 27th July, 2006 Js.