IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CONTEMPT CASE NO : 1684 of 2008 Between: Mohammed Burhanuddin ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and three others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CONTEMPT CASE No.1684 of 2008 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in not implementing the order made in W.P.M.P.No.14864 of 2008 in W.P.No.11494 of 2008, dated 28-05-2008, whereby the respondents were directed not to interfere with the civil matter and not to harass the petitioner by doing illegal acts such as disturbing privacy of the petitioner and by visiting his house bearing Municipal No.18-13-8-8/J/B/14/1/A, situated at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the 4th respondent never harassed the petitioner such as disturbing the privacy of the petitioner. The petitioner bore grudge against the respondents as the 4th respondent registered a suo-motu case in Crime No.153 of 2008 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and submitted a report to the Special Executive Officer to issue proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. He never asked the petitioner to settle the matter with third parties nor asked him to withdraw the suit filed by him at any point of time. The petitioner unnecessarily involved the 4th respondent into the civil disputes. The respondents never disobeyed the orders of the Hon’ble Court at any point of time. 3. In view of the specific stand taken by the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit that he never harassed the petitioner nor disturbed his privacy at any point of time, no further orders are necessary in this contempt case. 4. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall not interfere into the civil disputes arose between the parties, except as required under the Law. _________________ 27th August 2009 KVR