IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.6075 of 2010 Between: Kamu Mallikharjuna Rao. … Petitioner And: State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.V.S.S.Kameswara Rao for Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 to R.3. None for R.4 to R.6. This Court made the following: ORDER:- In this Writ Petition, the petitioner questioned the alleged unlawful interference of respondents 3 in his civil and matrimonial disputes with respondent No.5. Though serious allegations are made in this regard by the petitioner, these allegations are denied by Sri K.Srinivas Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiam Police Station. In the counter- affidavit filed by him it is stated that the complaint given by respondent No.5- daughter-in-law of the petitioner was registered as Crime No.167 of 2009; and that the same was taken cognizance of by the learned 7th Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, vide: C.C.No.540 of 2009. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the counter-affidavit it is stated as under: “11. It is respectfully submitted that all the averments made in the affidavit are against the accused persons in the above Crime. Except registration of the above crime in accordance with law, this respondent police did not interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful life and liberty and the respondent police has nothing to do with the allegations made in the affidavit. 12. It is respectfully submitted that all the allegations leveled against the police are incorrect, far from truth, concocted story and have been created for the purpose of filing the present writ petition”. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the correctness of the above mentioned averments and reiterated the pleas of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has been unduly interfering with the civil disputes, having regard to the unequivocal stand taken by the said respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 not to interfere in the civil and matrimonial disputes, as undertaken by him in his counter-affidavit. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police, East Godavari at Kakinada, if in future respondent No.3 causes any such interference. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ----------------------------- ------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:7-4-2010 MNR