THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13210 of 2010 Dated 23rd August, 2010 Between: Syed Abdul Fasih. …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Principal Secretary and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. Mohd. Abdullah Khan Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioner and not taking action on the petitioner’s complaint given to respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents. The petitioner’s marital ties with his wife appeared to have run into rough weather. He has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He alleged that at the instance of his wife and her other family members, respondent No.3 has been harassing him instead of taking action against the criminal activities of his wife and her other family members. Sri A.K.Khan, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, who is impleaded as respondent No.2, filed a detailed counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that on receipt of the petitioner’s representation, he has made an endorsement forwarding the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad, on 26.06.2010 for enquiry and report and that the Deputy Commissioner, in turn, directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Falaknuma Division, Hyderabad, (ACP) to hold enquiry and submit report. That the said report submitted by the ACP revealed that no case was registered against the petitioner in respondent No.3 Police Station and that the Police have no role in the family issues of the petitioner and his wife. It is, however, stated that the petitioner is accused in Crime No.185 of 2010 of Women Police Station, South Zone and that efforts are being made to apprehend him in connection with the same. Respondent No.2 categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that after carefully going through the report of the ACP, he was satisfied that respondent No.3 never summoned the petitioner nor illegally detained him in order to harass his family members at any point of time. No reply-affidavit is filed controverting the above averments. In the light of the abovementioned averments contained in the counter-affidavit and the contents of the report of the ACP, the unsubstantiated allegations made in the writ petition do not deserve to be accepted. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his legal remedies in connection with the pending criminal case. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.16659 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd August, 2010 GHN