IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6587 of 2009 Between: B. Narsubai, W/o. Mahadhoba alias Madhoba, R/o. H.No.2-22, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Raidurgam, R.R. District. 2 The Commissioner, Cyberabad Police, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Director General of Police, Police Department, Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad. 4 B.Narsingh Rao alias Narsinga, S/o. Kakobha, R/o. H.No.13-4-730/2, Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad. ..... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner complained of harassment and interference with the life and personal liberty of her and her family members by respondent No.1. In response to the notice of this Court, respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the brother-in-law of the petitioner, by name, Bhajari Narsingh Rao, gave a complaint against the husband of the petitioner stating that during his absence, the said person trespassed into an open place belonging to the complainant and constructed a room in which he is running a hotel and that when the complainant approached the petitioner's husband, the latter threatened him with serious consequences, pounced upon him and warned that if he visits the place again, he will see the complainant's end. It is further stated that on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.75 of 2009 was registered for offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC on 10.03.2009 and investigation was commenced. It is further stated that during the investigation, two witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Respondent No.1 denied harassment of the petitioner or her family members or visiting their house at any point of time. It is also stated that the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner obviously to prevent the police from taking action against her husband in the pending criminal case. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of this writ petition, respondent No.1 stopped harassing the petitioner and her family members. He further submitted that in view of the stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter affidavit, the writ petition may be closed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, if respondent No.1 interferes with the life and personal liberty of her and her family members in future. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.8607 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th June, 2009 kl/kvni