IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.13402 of 2009 Between: Peddireddy Ranga Rao & others. … Petitioners And The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedapadu P.S., Pedapadu P.O. & Mandal, West Godavari District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri B.P. Raju Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13402 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed of a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in summoning the petitioners to the police station frequently on the false complaints of respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. In their affidavit, the petitioners stated that one Chalamalasetti Venkata Subbamma wife of Mallikarjuna Rao died on 19.10.2007 due to ill-health and lack of medical facility in time, that on the same day at 8.00 a.m., drainage workers were digging the drainage in the temple site and that respondent No.4 objected to the same and argued with petitioner No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.4 gave a complaint to respondent No.1 against petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 to 6. The petitioners averred that taking advantage of the said complaint, respondent No.1 has been summoning them to the police station and interfering with their life and liberty. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that crime No.167 of 2007 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., in connection with the death of the said Venkata Subbamma and that on finding that the cause of the death was natural, the case was closed by the Mandal Executive Magistrate on 10.02.2009. She stated that respondent No.1 instructed her to submit that he has never interfered with the life and personal liberty of the petitioners. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after filing of the writ petition, respondent No.1 stopped harassing the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of by placing on record the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy, if respondent No.1 interferes with their life and personal liberty in future. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.17412 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.07.2009 ES