THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.12309 of 2007 (Dt.07-04-2010) Between: Dumpeti Sreekanth S/o Kotaiah and others ..Petitioners A n d The Superintendent of Police, Warangal and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.12309 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed the petitioners, who are six in number, assailing the action of respondents 3 to 6, in harassing them at the instigation of respondent No.7- Bijili Mahender. 2. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is as follows: The petitioners are doing cable network business. They have 24% of share in M/s.Hanamkonda Communication City Cable Network. The 7th respondent joined the business of the petitioners and took 52% of share from existing operators. Some disputes cropped up between the petitioners and the 7th respondent, which, ultimately led to filing suits in civil Courts and also initiation of criminal proceedings. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents 3 to 6 are harassing them at the instance of the 7th respondent. For better appreciation, I may refer para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder:- “ I submit that thereafter wards the respondents No.3 to 6 started harassing us without following due process of law. The respondents 3 to 6 calling us to police station and made us to wait there hours together and put pressure on us to compromise with the respondent No.7 with his terms and conditions, the respondents no.3 to 6 with collusion of the respondent No.7, doing all these harassment against us. The respondent No.3 to 7, also not permit us to operate our cable network properly and threatening us to foist false cases. The petitioners through M.L.A.Chada Venkatreddy made a representation to D.G.P on 06-06-2007. Because of the behavious of the respondents we are getting financial loss. In the circumstances, we are constrained to file this Writ Petition to get justice”. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 14.6.2007. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit. One Mohd. Liaquath Ali Khan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Warangal Town has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter that the enquiries made by him revealed that civil suits are pending between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents. Apart from civil suits, both parties resorted to filing complaints against each other. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit need to be noted and it is thus:- “3. I respectfully submit that in my enquiry it was revealed that Civil suits are pending against the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondent. 1) Crl.No.440/2006 U/se.427 IPC (Vide CC No.368/2007) 2) Cr.No.110/2007 U/Secs.447, 428, 506 r/w 34 IPC (Vide CC No.368/2007) 3) Cr.No.154/2007 U/Secs.406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C (Vide CC No.668/2007) on the file of the Subedair Police Station 4) Cr.No.255/2007 U/Secs.447, 427 Indian Penal Code (Vide CC No.890/2007) and 5) Cr.No.115/2007 U/Secs.447, 427 IPC on the file of Kazipet Police Station 6) Cr.No.279/07, U/Secs.435 Indian Penal Code of PS., Subedari (Vide CC NO.891/2007) were registered against the petitioners herein. 7) On the private complaint of the petitioners herein a case in Cr.No.348/2005, U/Secs.403, 405, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the 7th respondent herein and after completion of the investigation the same was referred as Civil nature on 31.01.2007”. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent. 5. Indisputably, the petitioners as well as the 7th respondent resorted to filing cases against each other, both civil and criminal. Since both parties filed complaints against each other, it is essential for the police to call the parties and to make necessary enquiries so that they can find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. 6. In the given facts and circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that they are being harassed by the respondents 3 to 6 at the instance of respondent No.7 has no substance. 7. The Writ petition is devoid of merits, and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 07-04-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.12309 of 2007 (Dt.07-04-2010)