IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13494 of 2009 Between: 1 Sneha Latha W/o. Late Shankar Das R/o. H.No. 3-4-358/1, 1st Floor, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500 027. 2 Dhiraj Premi S/o. Late Shankar Das R/o. H.No. 3-4-358/1, 1st Floor, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500 027. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Women’s Protection Cell, Central Crime Station (CCS), Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.RAVINDRA BHARATI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to harass and cause inconvenience to the petitioners in connection with the complaint lodged by Smt.Meghana @ Priti. Petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the brother of Deepak @ Shamal Premi. The said Deepak married one Meghana @ Priti. Matrimonial disputes arose between the said two persons. The allegation of the petitioners is that on the complaint of Smt.Meghana against her husband-Deepak, the petitioners were summoned by respondent No.2 to the Police Station to disclose his whereabouts. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the complaint of Smt.Meghana was not registered as a Criminal Case as it discloses subsistence of matrimonial disputes between her and her husband and that the petitioners were neither required in connection with any case nor they were summoned by respondent No.2 at any point of time. Sri Ravindra Bharati, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that after filing of this Writ Petition, respondent No.2 stopped interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home as noted above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail their legal remedy, if and when respondent No.2 interferes with their life and liberty in future. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.17536 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 23rd July, 2009 lur