IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 27443 of 2005 BETWEEN: P. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 55, Chandrapuri Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad. 3 M. Renuka, D/o. M. Venkat Reddy, Physical Director, Durgabai Desh Mukh Polytechnic College, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 4 M. Venkat Reddy, S/o. not known to the petitioner, R/o. H.No.6-8-229, Opp: Kuturu Laxma Reddy's House, Near China Venkat Reddy Function Hall, Ravindra Nagar, Nalgonda. 5 M. Poolamma, W/o. M. Venkata Reddy, R/o. H.No.6-8-229, Opp: Kuturu Laxma Reddy's House, Near China Venkat Reddy Function Hall, Ravindra Nagar, Nalgonda. 6 M. Narender Reddy, S/o. M. Venkat Reddy, R/o. H.No.6-8-229, Opp: Kuturu Laxma Reddy's House, Near China Venkat Reddy Function Hall, Ravindra Nagar, Nalgonda. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to declare the action of the respondent No. 2 in not arresting the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein who are Accused in Cr.No.893/2005 despite the said crime is registered on 18-9-2005 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 1 herein to take necessary action against the 2nd respondent and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRNAKARIKANTI.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The only grievance of the petitioner is that there cannot be any justification on the part of the Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in not arresting the respondents 3 to 6, who are accused in Cr.No.893 of 2005 dated 18.09.2005 on the file of the second respondent police station. 2. Counter has been filed stating that all the accused have been arrested during the course of the investigation and later released pursuant to anticipatory bail obtained by them, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused were not arrested. 3. In view of the aforesaid counter, I am of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 10, 2008 DSK