IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6595 of 2008 Between: Boya Macharla Hanuman Prasad & another. … Petitioners AND State of A.P., rep., by Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District, Anantapur & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri J. Sampath Kumar Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6595 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in harassing the petitioners at the instance of respondent No.4, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners claim to have married against the wishes of respondent No.4, who is the mother of petitioner No.2. On the complaint given by respondent No.4, a criminal case was registered as Crime No.3 of 2008 under Section 366 (A) IPC by respondent No.1. Petitioner No.1 was arrested and released on bail on 07.02.2008 subject to conditions. In their affidavit, the petitioners expressed apprehension that respondent No.4, who is presently residing within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3, is likely to file another complaint and that there is a likelihood of respondent No.3 to register another case against petitioner No.1. Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Guntakal, Anantapur district, filed a counter affidavit in which it is mentioned that on the complaint given by respondent No.4, crime No.3 of 2008 was registered under Section 366 (A) IPC on 15.01.2008 against petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 approached respondent No.2 police on 17.01.2008 and confessed to have committed the offence. After arresting and remanding petitioner No.1 to the judicial custody, investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against him in the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal and the case was taken on file as PRC.No.6 of 2008. The allegation that respondent No.3 is likely to register another case is specifically denied in the counter affidavit and it is stated that no fresh complaint has been filed till date. In view of the abovementioned averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the petitioners apprehension that respondent No.3 is likely to register another case, does not appear to have any basis and hence the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.Nos.8601 and 8602 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim reliefs are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.04.2008 ES