IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25820 of 2007 Between: 1 Dabbigodla Satyanarayana, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, R/o.Korlamanda(V), Vissannapeta(M), Krishna Dist 2 Dabbigodla Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, R/o.Korlamanda(V), Vissannapeta(M), Krishna Dist ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Krishna,Machilipatnam 2 The Sub-Inspector of Police, L&O,Patamata,Vijayawada,Krishna Dist 3 Agole Ramesh, S/o.Chalamaiah, Hindu, R/o.D.No.71-2-33/2, Koneruvari Street,Patamata Vijayawada .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in repeatedly calling the petitioners to the Police Station and harassing them without registering a case against them as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the allegation that he is harassing the petitioners is denied. It is mentioned that respondent No.3 filed a complaint on 01.11.2007 to the effect that on 29.10.2007, when he returned home from his duty, he found his house locked, but as his wife did not return home, he filed the said complaint, which was registered as Crime No.676 of 2007 under the head “Woman Missing”. It is further stated that during the investigation, respondent No.3 stated that the son of petitioner No.2 is suspected to have kidnapped his wife in view of his acquaintance with his wife. It is averred that investigation is still pending. Inasmuch as respondent No.2 categorically denied any harassment of the petitioners in connection with the complaint filed by respondent No.3, I do not find any reason to give directions to respondent Nos.1 and 2 as claimed in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.33647 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd APRIL, 2008 kvni