THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31322 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in pressurizing the petitioner to pay amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the 3rd respondent by interfering the civil disputes and also personal liberties of the petitioner without any legal cause as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from interfering with the civil disputes by pressurizing the petitioner to pay amounts to the 3rd respondent.” It is the case of the petitioner that he borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the third respondent by executing a pro-note and also by signing on blank cheques. It is stated that such borrowed amount is already repaid in the presence of the mediator one Gudiwada Venkataramana Gupta on 07.02.2010. It is also stated that the documents, which were executed by the petitioner, were not returned to him on the premise that they were in the locker in the bank. When the petitioner insisted for return of such documents by sending a notice, there is interference by respondents 1 and 2 and pressurizing him to pay further amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the third respondent. When the matter was taken up on 14.12.2010, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions. Today, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent is purely civil in nature and respondents 1 and 2 are nothing to do with that. It is also submitted that the petitioner was never summoned to the police station nor threatened by respondents 1 and 2 as alleged in the affidavit. Whether the petitioner has repaid the amount or not is not a matter, which is to be examined in the present writ petition, more particularly, in the absence of the third respondent. As it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that there is no interference by respondents 1 and 2 in the civil disputes, which exist between the petitioner and the third respondent, and they are not insisting the petitioner to present in the police station, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition placing on record such statement made on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that any such complaint further, will be viewed seriously. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th DECEMBER, 2010. kvni