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 TENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.4431 of 2008 Between: Y. Ramesh … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4431 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 3 in calling the petitioner to the police station and pressuring and threatening him to pay a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- to one Sri B. Sanjeevaiah and the inaction of respondent No.1 in taking action against respondent No.3 on representation dated 18.02.2008 submitted by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has been harassing and coercing him to pay a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- to one Sri B. Sanjeevaiah. He further submitted that being unable to bear with the said harassment, he filed representation dated 18.02.2008 to respondent No.1 to take action against respondent No.3. His further grievance is that neither respondent No.3 stopped harassing him nor respondent No.1 initiated any action against respondent No.3 in that regard. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit in which he flatly denied the allegations made by the petitioner. He stated that no complaint whatsoever is received against the petitioner from Sanjeevaiah and that he never summoned the petitioner nor pressurized or threatened him at any point of time. He also stated that the transaction between the said Sanjeevaiah and the petitioner is a money transaction, which is purely civil in nature and that he is not concerned with the same. The unequivocal statements made by respondent No.3 in his counter affidavit are taken on record and the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint against respondent No.3 in the event he harasses him. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5766 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.03.2008 ES