IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4396 of 2009 Between: 1 Boyapalli Raghavendra Reddy S/o. Boyapalli Rameswara Reddy, R/o. H.No.21-61/1/1, Brindavan Colony, Near Indira Hospital Ranga Reddy District. 2 Rajesh Reddy S/o. Boyapalli Rameswara Reddy Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, III-Town Police Station, Kurnool. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents as illegal not to harass the petitioners by taking into Kurnool PS not to interfere with the petitioners professional career and peaceful life. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO DITTAKAVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The case of the petitioners is that one G.Suseelamma lodged a private complaint before the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kurnool against the parents of the petitioners and another and the same was referred to III Town Police Station, Kurnool and registered as FIR No.146 of 2008, dated 22.08.2008. They state that they do not know the whereabouts of their parents, but it is their grievance that though the petitioners are not the accused in F.I.R. No.146 of 2008, the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer, Kurnool, on 23.12.2008, took them and detained them in the police station up to 24.12.2008 and harassed them by way of interrogation to know the whereabouts of their parents, against whom, the 2nd respondent is seeking to lodge a complaint in connection with chit fund business, and is also frequently summoning them to the police station and interfering with their personal life and liberty. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments of the writ affidavit and stated that the petitioners are not at all required in any of the cases and the respondent police never harassed the petitioners nor detained them in the police station at any point of time. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents and in view of the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit that the respondents never harassed the petitioners nor detained them in the police station and they are not at all required in any of the cases, no orders are necessary in this writ petition, and the same is accordingly closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 30th March, 2009 bcj