IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6583 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Khaiser Hussain S/o.Mohd. Yousuf R/o.8-1-143/1/2, Brindavan Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla P.S., Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police, Hyderabad. 3 The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AHMED KHAN Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, I, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ, or Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus etc. declaring the illegal acts of the Respondent No.1 as unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice.” The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was picked by respondent No.1 from his residence on 27.02.2008 around 9.00 a.m., kept him in detention and released him around 10.00 p.m. He alleged that before his release, respondent No.1 took away his cell phone of L.G. make with Reliance Sim Card bearing No.9393027078. He further alleged that when he approached respondent No.1, he threatened him with foisting false case and he claimed that he immediately sent a telegram to respondent Nos.2 and 3 against respondent No.1. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted, on instructions, that none of the allegations made against respondent No.1 is correct and that respondent No.1 never detained the petitioner in the Police Station or took away the phone along with the sim card. In view of the disputed questions of fact, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider telegram, dated 28.02.2008 said to have been issued by the petitioner against respondent No.1 and take appropriate action there on. If the petitioner is not satisfied about the action taken by respondent No.2, he shall be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a private complaint. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.8586 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st APRIL, 2008 kvni