IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 30 of 2009 Between: Gorantla Raghava Rao S/o Sambasiva Rao Parchur(M) Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Superintendent of Police Prakasam District ongole 2 Ramesh Babu Inspector of Police Inkollu Circle Inkollu Prakasam District 3 S.I Of Police Inkollu P.S Inkollu Prakasam District 4 Ramesh Babu Police Constable Inkollu P.S Inkollu Prakasam District 5 Vijaya Industries rep.by its Executive Manager Plot No.204 100 Feet Road Autonagar Guntur District 6 Appalaneni Om Narayana S/o Radhakrishna age not known Annambotlavaripalem Parchur(M) Prakasam District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ petitioner declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the civil disputes and infringing his civil rights without any reason whatsoever as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with Civil dispute and not to infringe his civil rights. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : .... ORDER: Questioning the action of the 4th respondent in interfering in the civil rights of the petitioner without any reason at the instance of respondents 2,3,5 and 6, this writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 to 3, Sri Subba Rao Korrapati for respondent No.4 and Sri G.Dharma Rao for respondent No.5. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner purchased a second hand tractor from the 5th respondent in the year 2005. At that time, the 5th respondent, promising to provide finance for purchasing the tractor through their agents, obtained blank cheque Nos.489451 to 489458 and also obtained signatures of the petitioner on some blank papers. However, he failed to provide the financial assistance and, therefore, the petitioner approached Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., Guntur and obtained finance from them and purchased the tractor. But, the blank papers signed by him and the cheques were not returned by the 5th respondent and taking advantage of those papers, the 5th respondent, with the help of respondents 2 to 4 started harassing him. It is stated that at the instance of the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent, who is a constable working in Inkollu Police Station taken him forcibly from his house on 29.12.2008 to the 3rd respondent police station and detained him there and threatened to implicate in false cases and on that pretext, collected an amount of Rs.35,000/- and thereafter released him. To that effect, the 4th respondent has also issued a receipt. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is sending the 4th respondent and other police constables working under his control to his house and threatening him to withdraw the suit filed by his father against the associates of the 6th respondent. This Court, on 12.1.2009, while issuing notice before admission directed respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the civil rights of the petitioner. Thereafter, counter affidavits are filed denying the writ allegations. However, keeping in view the serious allegations levelled by the petitioner against the respondents, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and a report is submitted before this Court stating that the petitioner himself admitted before him that the 4th respondent – Constable is not the person who came to his house and threatened him and, therefore, the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the police of Inkollu Police Station are not established and hence are not correct. In the circumstances, taking into consideration the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police as also the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 4 not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.5.6.2009 msv