THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.706 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the day-to-day activities of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint lodged by the third respondent, who is none other than the father of the daughter-in- law of the petitioner, crime No.49 of 2009 on the file of Women Police Station, CCS DD, Hyderabad, for the offences under Section 498-A and 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, was registered against the petitioner, his wife and son. Even though the petitioner and his wife obtained bail orders, respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to their house on 27.12.2009 along with the constables and asked the petitioner and his wife to come to Police Station, without any reason, and caused nuisance. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent, having colluded with the third respondent, has been continuously visiting his house, threatening him and interfering with his day-to-day activities. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that he is not at all interfering with the activities of the petitioner. It is relevant to extract paragraph No.4 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as under: “I submit that the allegation of the petitioner that this respondent connivance with the 3rd respondent-complainant is continuously visiting his house and interfering with day to day activities is absolutely false and hence the same is denied. The allegation of the petitioner that on 27.12.2009 the respondents Nos.2 and 3 along with constables came to his house at Nallakunta and asked him to come to the police station and in spite of showing the bail orders, this respondent is reluctant to accept the same and the 3rd respondent is continuously instigating this respondent to arrest him is also false, baselsss and hence the same is denied. The allegation of the petitioner that the respondents are continuously visiting his house and troubling them is also not correct and hence the same is denied. The allegation of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent threatened him with dire consequences in front of the official respondents but did not take any action against the 3rd respondent is also not correct. The allegation of the petitioner that being in official capacity the respondents 1 and 2 are acting in favour of the unofficial respondent herein for the reasons best known to them is also false and hence the same is denied.” In view of the counter averments extracted hereinabove, which disclose that the second respondent is not interfering with the activities of the petitioner, no orders need be passed in this writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is closed. _______________________ N.V. RAMANA, J 08th July, 2010 GHN