IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13862 of 2009 Between: Neelapu Siva Prasad Reddy S/o late Chandra Lingam Reddy A.P State of INTUC(YWC) 50-39-1 TPT Colony,Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police Visakhapatnam,Visakhapatnam District 2 The Station House Officer III Town L&O Police Station, Visakhapatnam,Visakhapatnam District 3 Mr.Rangaraju Circle Inspector Of Police III Town L&O Police Station,Visakhapatnam 4 Sri Kantha Rao Sub Inspector of Police III Town L&OPolice Station Visakhapatnam,Visakhapatnam District 5 Smt.R.B Visalakshmi W/o not Known to the petitioner Sivalayam Street Ramaraopet,Kakinada,East Godavari District ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in calling the petitioner to the police station and compelling him to sit there for long hours as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is working as Record Assistant in Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. He had money transaction with respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, he repaid the entire money to respondent No.5, but the latter did not handover the receipt. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.5 approached respondent No.2 and on 03.07.2009, respondent No.2 summoned the petitioner to the police station and made him to sit from 10.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m. A similar allegation is made against respondent No.4 also. After instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that on 19.07.2009, a case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.5 for the offences under Sections 384, 420 and 506 IPC and that prior thereto, none of respondents 2 to 4 ever interfered with the life and liberty of the petitioner. She further stated that except to the extent of investigating into the crime, the police will not interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner. Believing these submissions made on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.18118 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th July, 2009s vrn