IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19810 of 2010 BETWEEN Yallampalli Satya Sai Srinivasa Rao and another. ... PETITIONERS AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners in this writ petition seek directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent – police in frequently visiting their house and interfering with their possession in the house bearing door No.3A-14-4, Geeta Bhavam Road, Kothamasu Seetaramayya Street, near Perugu Chettu as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of their rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to issue consequential directions to the respondents not to interfere with their rights and enjoyment of the house property. 2. The fourth respondent herein is Kotak Mahindra Bank. One Sri Dachepalli Narsimhulu, an employee of the fourth respondent bank, lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station on 04.08.2010 stating that the fourth respondent bank has sanctioned loan amount of Rs.80,00,000/- to one Padarthi Ramachander Rao, P. Balakrishna, P. Satyanarayana and P. Seshagiri and Y. Hema Naga Venkata Madhavi and Y. Satya Said Srinivasa Rao, petitioners herein, stood sureties and mortgaged their property. In the complaint it is stated that the loanee and the guarantors failed to repay the said amount and on the other hand, the sureties have sold the mortgaged property and thus, committed cheating and requested to take action. Based on the aforesaid complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.318 of 2010 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. 3. Although it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-police are visiting their house without any authority of law and jurisdiction, as a crime is registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.318 of 2010 for the offence under Section 420 IPC, the investigation, which is being made on such complaint, in the aforesaid crime cannot be construed as interference. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already paid substantial amount of the loan amount obtained by the principal borrower Padarthi Ramachander Rao. However, the said aspect cannot be gone into in the writ petition and in view of the registration of crime on the complaint lodged on behalf of the fourth respondent bank the police have got every authority to investigate into the crime. In that view of the matter, the investigation by the police cannot be construed as an interference so as to issue directions in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J December 13, 2010 DSK