IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13826 of 2009 Between: 1 Madala Rama Devi, W/o. Late Madala, Widow, Madalavarigudem, Gannavaram, Krishna District. 2 Madala Lakshmi Ranganath, S/o. Madala Radha Krishna Madalavarigudem, Gannavaram, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Station House Office, Gannavaram Police Station, Gannavaram, Krishna District. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Sambasiva Rao, Police Constable, Gannavaram Police Station, Gannavaram, Krishna District. 4 Madala Kanaka Durgama, W/o. Madala Venkateswarao, Madalavarigudem, Gannavaram, Krishna District. 5 Madala Venkateswararao, S/o.Madala Rangaiah, Madalavarigudem, Gannavaram, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the action of the 3rd respondent police constable by using his official position, in illegally threatening and forcing the Petitioners family to vacate and sell their house and influencing the 1st respondent police to foist false cases on petitioner at the instance of unofficial respondents by interfering in the civil disputes of our family and demanding money is illegal, highly arbitrary, totally unlawful and abuse of the power apart from violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in a civil disputes of petitioner family at the instance of unofficial respondent and to stop harassing the petitioners without following due process of law and also direct the respondents to take action as per law against the 3rd respondent erring policeman.” At the hearing, Sri D.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is instructed by the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn, WPMP.No.18070 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th JULY, 2009. kvni