IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 18717 of 2002 BETWEEN: 1 M. Kotaiah, S/o. Sri M. Badraiah, R/o. H.No.5-1-937, Puthilbowli, Hyderabad. 2 M. Amarnath, S/o. M. Kotaiah, R/o. H.No.5-1-937, Puthilbowli, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Inspector of Police, City Crimes Station, Police Control Room, Hyderabad. 2 Col.P.S.Sandhu Singh [(Retd] Age: Major, R/o. Plot No.22, Om Nagar, Near Blooms College, Gudimalkapur, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 3 R. Lingaiah, R/o. D.No. 129-12, Langer House, Ambedkar Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ of Mandamus to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent No.1 and his subordinates in interfering with the petitioners day to life without any reason or any complaint and insisting for settlement of amounts with the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and consequently direct the 1st Respondent not a interfere the petitioners except according to law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.V.SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The only grievance of the petitioners is that the first respondent is interfering with their day to day life without any reason and without any complaint whatsoever for the settlement of the amount due and said to have been payable to the second respondent. 2. Counter has been filed stating that on the complaint of the second respondent a case in Cr.No.331 of 2002 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code of CCS, DD was registered and handed over the case to the first respondent. 3. In view of the registration of crime against the petitioner it cannot be said that the first respondent is harassing the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action to question the said crime. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 16, 2008 DSK