IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27263 of 2007 Between: Ayluru Pulla Reddy & another. … Petitioners AND The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nuzveedu, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Y. Subba Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27263 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioners in order to protect them from respondent Nos.3 and 4. The facts of the case reveal a rather disturbing story. The petitioners, who are the parents of respondent Nos.3 and 4, apprehend life threat from the latter. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition indicate that there are serious property disputes between the petitioners on the one side and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other and the wives of respondent Nos.3 and 4 went to the extent of filing criminal complaint against the petitioners for offence under Section 498-A IPC. The main grievance of the petitioners is that since respondent Nos.3 and 4 are posing life threat to them, they approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a request to afford protection to them from respondent Nos.3 and 4 and that no action was taken on such a request. Notices ordered to respondent Nos.3 and 4 returned ‘served’ and no appearance is made on their behalf. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is stated that on the complaint given by the wife of respondent No.4, crime No.3 of 2008 under Sections 498-A, 448, 506, 441 and 379 read with 34 IPC was registered against the petitioners and others, investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate on 31.01.2008. It is alleged that since one of their daughters-in-law filed a private complaint against the petitioners, they appeared to have made allegations against their sons and that if they approach the respondent Police by way of proper representation, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are always ready and willing to provide protection to them as and when required. On 18.03.2008, this Court, while ordering notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4, directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to give necessary protection to the petitioners as held out by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their counter affidavit. At the hearing, Sri Y. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients were informed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are willing to give protection to them. In view of the same, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.35662 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.04.2008 ES