IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3757 of 2008 Between: Bapathi Konda Reddy & another. … Petitioners AND The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kavali Division, Kavali, Nellore District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to 3: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3757 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in harassing the petitioners by calling them to the police station and seeking to interfere with the private property disputes between the petitioners on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other. In the view I am taking, there is no need to give notice to respondent No.4. The only grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have interfering with the enjoyment of their property and impinging on their personal liberty. They also alleged that they filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate against respondent Nos.1 to 4 and on reference by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the police registered crime and filed a report referring the case as false. The petitioners’ claim to have been filed a protest petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same is pending. Their grievance is that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are unduly interfering in the civil disputes. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, he stated as under: “I respectfully submit that I never interfered with the civil disputes nor harassed the petitioners at any point of time. Prima facie, the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is civil in nature and no way concerned with the respondent police. To settle their personal scores, the petitioner leveled baseless allegations against this respondent. The further allegation that the official respondents hence colluded with the 4th respondent is not true and the same is denied. Hence, the writ petition deserves no consideration.” In view of the above-reproduced statement made by respondent No.1, the writ petition is closed. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioners to pursue their remedies against respondent Nos.1 to 3, if they interfere in the civil disputes in future and such remedies include the complaints to the Superintendent of Police, Nellore District against them. If such complaints are filed, the Superintendent of Police shall enquire into the same and take appropriate action. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.4897 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2008 ES