IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11830 of 2008 Between: M.Laxmana Chary, S/o. Panduranga Chary, R/o. H.No.7-2-890, situated at Pot Market, HYDERABAD. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Zone, Hyderabad. 3 Station House Officer, Crime Division Police, Kushaiguda P.S., HCL Colony, Kushaiguda , Ranga Reddy 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 to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in frequently taking the Petitioner to P.S and harassing him to give the gold as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and conseqeutnly direct the Respondents not to harass the Petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GIRI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed, alleging that the 3rd respondent is frequently calling the petitioner to the Kushaiguda Police Station and harassing him to handover stolen gold, which was presumably sold to the petitioner by certain persons. The petitioner denies receipt of any such stolen property and has filed this Writ Petition to stop the harassment. Learned Government Pleader for Home has obtained instructions from the 3rd respondent and states that Cr.No.350 of 2008 was registered in the 3rd respondent-Police Station and during the course of investigation of the said crime and on examination of the accused, the accused had revealed that they sold the gold stolen by them to the petitioner. Thus enquiries were made with the petitioner. On further investigation, the 3rd respondent is satisfied that there is no material to show that the accused in Cr.No. 350 of 2008 had sold the gold to the petitioner and hence the petitioner is not being called to police station. In view of this statement made on behalf of the 3rd respondent by the learned Government Pleader for Home, no further proceedings are warranted. The Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 30.6.2008 cvm